NOTTINGHAMSHIRE POLICE AND CRIME PANEL
Monday, 24 April 2017 at 14:00 Nottinghamshire Police Headquarters - Sherwood Lodge, Arnold, Nottingham, NG5 8PP
There will be a pre-meeting for Panel Members only in the meeting room at 1.15pm
AGENDA
1 Minutes of last meeting held on 6 February 2017 5 - 18
2 Apologies for Absence
3 Declarations of Interests by Members and Officers:- (see note below) (a) Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (b) Private Interests (pecuniary and non-pecuniary)
4 Work Programme 19 - 22
5 Review of Membership - Independent Co-opted Members 23 - 26
6 Police and Crime Commissioner's Update 27 - 56
7 Finance Performance and Insight Report - 2016-17 57 - 70
8 Police and Crime Plan Theme 3 - Focus on Priority Crime Types 71 - 84 and those local areas most affected by Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour
Page 1 of 115 9 Regional Collaboration Update
9(a) Regional Collaboration presentation 85 - 104
9(b) Proposal for a Regional Collaboration Workshop Event 105 - 108
10 Complaints Update 109 - 116
Notes
(a) Members of the public are welcome to attend to observe meetings of the Police and Crime Panel. Please note that there is no opportunity for the public to speak at these meetings.
(b) Declarations of Interests – Persons making a declaration of interest should have regard to their own Council’s Code of Conduct and the Panel’s Procedural Rules.
Members or Officers requiring clarification on whether to make a declaration of interest are invited to contact Keith Ford (Tel. 0115 9772590) or a colleague in Democratic Services at Nottinghamshire County Council prior to the meeting.
(c) Members of the public wishing to inspect ‘Background Papers’ referred to in the reports on the agenda or Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act should contact:-
Customer Services Centre 0300 500 80 80 (d) Membership:-
Mrs Christine Goldstraw OBE – Independent Member - Chair Councillor Debbie Mason – Rushcliffe Borough Council – Chair
Mayor Kate Allsop – Mansfield District Council Mr Rizwan Araf – Independent Member Councillor Cheryl Butler – Ashfield District Council Councillor David Challinor – Bassetlaw District Council Councillor Azad Choudhry - Nottingham City Council Councillor Michael Edwards - Nottingham City Council
Page 2 of 115 Councillor David Ellis – Gedling Borough Council Councillor Glynn Gilfoyle – Nottinghamshire County Council Councillor Keith Girling – Newark &Sherwood District Council Councillor John Handley – Nottinghamshire County Council Mrs Suma Harding – Independent Member Councillor Nicola Heaton – Nottingham City Council Councillor Tony Harper – Broxtowe Borough Council Councillor Keith Longdon – Nottinghamshire County Council Councillor Francis Purdue-Horan – Nottinghamshire County Council Mr Bob Vaughan-Newton – Independent Member Councillor Linda Woodings – Nottingham City Council
Page 3 of 115
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE POLICE AND CRIME PANEL 1
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON MONDAY 6TH FEBRUARY 2017 AT 2.00 PM AT COUNTY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT (A denotes absent)
Chairman - Christine Goldstraw OBE – Independent Member Vice-Chairman Councillor Debbie Mason – Rushcliffe Borough Council
Executive Mayor Kate Allsop – Mansfield District Council Rizwan Araf – Independent Member Councillor Cheryl Butler – Ashfield District Council Councillor Dave Challinor – Bassetlaw District Council Councillor Azad Choudhry – Nottingham City Council Councillor Michael Edwards – Nottingham City Council Councillor David Ellis – Gedling Borough Council Councillor Glynn Gilfoyle, Nottinghamshire County Council Councillor Keith Girling – Newark and Sherwood District Council -A Councillor John Handley - Nottinghamshire County Council Suma Harding – Independent Member -A Councillor Tony Harper – Broxtowe Borough Council Councillor Nicola Heaton – Nottingham City Council Councillor Keith Longdon – Nottinghamshire County Council -A Councillor Francis Purdue-Horan – Nottinghamshire County Council Bob Vaughan-Newton – Independent Member Councillor Linda Woodings – Nottingham City Council
OFFICERS PRESENT
Keith Ford - Team Manager, Democratic Services ) Nottinghamshire Pete Barker - Democratic Services Officer ) County Council Nigel Stevenson - Service Director, Finance, Procurement & ) (Host Authority) Improvement )
OTHERS PRESENT
Paddy Tipping - Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) Craig Guildford - Chief Constable, Nottinghamshire Sallie Blair - Office of PCC (OPCC) Kevin Dennis - Chief Executive, OPCC Mark Kimberley - Head of Finance, Notts Police Charlotte Radford - Chief Finance Officer (OPCC)
Page 4 of 115 1
The Chairman welcomed the new Chief Constable to his first meeting of the Panel since starting in post.
1. MINUTES OF LAST MEETING
The minutes of the confirmation hearing for the appointment of the Chief Constable held on the 9 December 2016, and the minutes of the meeting held on 19 December 2016, having been previously circulated, were agreed as a true and correct record, and were confirmed and signed by the Chair of the meeting.
2. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Suma Harding, Councillor Keith Girling and Councillor Keith Longdon.
3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
No declarations of interest were made.
4. WORK PROGRAMME
The Chairman thanked the Commissioner, Keith Ford and colleagues for their support and contributions to the two recent finance workshops.
Keith Ford introduced the report and confirmed a workshop had been organised for the 24 April where the new Chief Constable would be able to share his strategic thinking with the Panel.
Keith confirmed that at the next meeting of the Panel on 24 April there would be an item on the agenda regarding the retention or otherwise of the independent members of the Panel. Keith informed the Panel that he would write to all elected members before the meeting seeking their views and that the independent members would be required to leave the meeting when the decision was made.
RESOLVED 2017/001
That the contents of the report be noted.
5. POLICE AND CRIME PLAN PRIORITIES AND CONSULTATION
The Commissioner introduced the report and informed the Panel that he felt the public’s priorities were around having a visible police presence and tackling the problem of anti- social behaviour. The Commissioner informed the Panel that crime continued to fall in Nottinghamshire but that the nature of that crime was changing. The Commissioner explained that the threats were now from terrorism, cyber-crime, where he felt the Force was behind the curve; and sexual offences, both contemporary and historical. The Commissioner informed the Panel that he thought a wider debate was required with the
Page 5 of 115 2
public to decide what the priorities should be and spoke of his intention to begin a priority based budget exercise. The Commissioner felt that the debate was not just about money but needed to focus on the Police’s future priorities nationally and whether the Notts Force could continue doing everything it did in the past when its grant had been cut by 20%.
During discussions the Panel raised the following points:
The Panel asked the Commissioner about the conduct of consultation, asking how it compared to that undertaken by local authorities who also asked questions regarding the Police, with the Panel expressing its concern that duplication was taking place resulting in unnecessary costs. The Commissioner replied that he contributed to the cost of the surveys conducted by the City and County councils which paid for the inclusion of questions regarding the police and therefore avoided duplication.
The Panel noted that in the Plan the Commissioner reiterated his support for neighbourhood policing and asked the Commissioner how he would deliver on this commitment given that officer numbers were reducing. The Commissioner confirmed that neighbourhood policing was a priority, though this is against a background where nationally there are 20,000 fewer officers than 5 years ago and the Commissioner told the Panel that in the past he had asked the Chief Constable to focus resources on the five Nottingham wards which were responsible for 25% of all crime.
The Panel referred to the recent budget workshop attended by the Commissioner at which he asked for the Panel’s support, with this in mind the Panel asked the Commissioner how they could provide that help. The Commissioner replied that all of the Panel members were influential figures and that he would be happy to attend any meeting in order to start a debate around the relevant issues.
The Panel referred to the Stonewall Workplace Equality Index where the Notts Force had been ranked 35th out of 439 employers and congratulated all those who had contributed to the change in culture. The Commissioner replied that there had been an emphasis on hate crime over the last 3 to 4 years with a 14% increase in reporting and though race hate and religious crimes had increased the number of LGBT incidents had not increased significantly and the Commissioner paid tribute to Sue Fish who in her time with the Force had taken this work forward.
The Panel thanked the Commissioner for his presentation and asked if it would be possible for the report to be more substantive in future.
RESOLVED 2017/002
That the contents of the report be noted.
Page 6 of 115 3
6. UPDATE TO POLICE AND CRIME DELIVERY PLAN 2016-18
The Commissioner introduced the report and spoke to the Panel about how he had seen fellow Commissioners anxious about obtaining approval for their Plans. The Commissioner informed the Panel that his Plan effectively had two authors, himself and the Chief Constable, and that this year the Plan did not differ significantly from the previous year’s and informed the Panel that he would spend the next 6 months working up new proposals in liaison with the Chief Constable.
During discussions the Panel raised the following points:
The Panel questioned the Commissioner about the reference to the Nottinghamshire Force closing more sexual offences as ‘prosecution not in the public interest’ than other forces in the region. The Commissioner replied that he was engaged in an ongoing debate with the Force on this topic as his view differed to that of the Force. The Commissioner informed the Panel that at present the Force takes forward cases it thinks will succeed whereas the Commissioner felt that more cases should be taken forward and informed the Panel that the situation may change under the new management. The Chief Constable pointed out the high conviction rate in such cases and informed the Panel that individual historical abuse cases should now begin reaching the courts.
The Panel referred to some of the new activities contained in the Plan and asked the Commissioner when these were brought forward and when could outcomes be expected. The Commissioner replied that the new Plan would commence on 1st April 2017 and that it was important to back up the words with actions. The Commissioner spoke of the challenge of aligning his own plan with the Force’s corporate plan.
The Panel referred to ‘Theme 7 – Spending Money Wisely’ and asked the Commissioner how this would be achieved. The Commissioner replied that this was already happening and gave the Panel the example of co-location. The Commissioner informed the Panel that the Chief Constable had met all of the District Councils’ Chief Executives and other partners and was confident of progress moving forward.
The Panel spoke of the problem of synchronising prospective meetings and the effect on the timeliness of information submitted and also mentioned the proliferation of key performance indicators and asked the Commissioner whether this information could be presented differently to allow the Panel to track progress more easily. The Commissioner replied that he had been involved in discussions earlier in the day that had looked at these challenges and the Panel responded with the offer of help and advice as required.
The Panel asked the Commissioner whether he could look at the RAG ratings as there was a feeling that the system was confusing and at times not directly relevant. The Commissioner acknowledged the point and spoke about the problem when working with multiple partners about how performance could be rated. The Commissioner informed the Panel that in the past the possibility of
Page 7 of 115 4
joint inspections had been discussed and felt that the lack of progress in this area was an indication of the extent of the difficulties faced.
RESOLVED 2017/003
That the contents of the report be noted.
7. PRECEPT AND BUDGET REPORTS 2017-18
The Chairman thanked the Commissioner and his colleagues for providing the answers to the questions submitted in writing prior to the meeting and the Commissioner thanked Charlie Radford and Mark Kimberley for turning round the information so quickly.
(The written questions and answers are appended to these minutes)
The Commissioner introduced the report and informed the Panel that in broad terms the financial background had not changed significantly since the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) of 2015 where, although the budget has been unchanged, in order to account for inflationary and budget pressures a rise in the precept of approximately 2% is required to maintain the budget in real terms. The Commissioner informed the Panel that in the current financial year the Force was on track to achieve the projected target of £12m savings and that he was confident that the target for the 2017/18 financial year of £5.5m savings would be achieved. The Commissioner told the Panel that the means of achieving these savings were detailed in the report but that the largest block of expenditure is pay for both staff and officers. The Commissioner informed the Panel that the Force expected to lose 100 officers through retirement in the current financial year and that it was looking to recruit 64, with 660 applicants having been received with a good proportion from different communities. The Commissioner informed the Panel that the savings on staffing costs amounted to £4m and that the remainder of the proposed savings would been made through collaboration and the re-phasing of the capital programme. The Commissioner spoke of the funding formula review and reminded the Panel that the Force relied on the grant for 70% of its funding which resulted in the Force being underfunded by approximately £10.5m per year. The Commissioner informed the Panel that he continued to be involved in the review and though the aspiration of the government was to implement the changes from April 2018 he doubted this would be achieved. The Commissioner stated that the proposal in the report was for an increase in the precept of 1.95% to raise £1.4m and if this request was turned down then savings to the budget would have to be made. The Commissioner informed the Panel that there were 2 or 3 new initiatives covered by the proposed budget including an increased focus on the problem of knife crime, the introduction of an integrated offender management system regarding the use of tags and a sum of £100k to cover any fresh initiatives that the new Chief Constable might want to implement.
During discussions the Panel raised the following points:
The Panel spoke about the fact that Nottingham was a metropolitan area with the seventh highest GDP in the country where, though many incidents occurred, it suffered from an unfair reputation. The Panel expressed its
Page 8 of 115 5
concern that crime and the behaviour of young people was becoming a problem again and spoke of the times in the past, dating back to 2003, where the City Council increased the Poll Tax by 10% as it wanted the Police to tackle the problems. The Commissioner expressed his appreciation for the City Council spending on neighbourhood policing at a level that was one of the highest in the country and spoke of the partnership working that happened in the City giving the example of the Arora initiative and the new station in the City which illustrated the integrated service being provided.
The Panel raised the subject of the numbers of PCSOs and civilian investigators employed and informed the Commissioner that although there was some initial reluctance to the concept of PCSOs, people in the communities had taken to them and it had proved to be a good idea and asked the Commissioner whether the PCSO role could be strengthened, especially in rural areas. The Commissioner replied that adverts for more PCSOs had been placed with the intention of increasing their number to 200. The Commissioner informed the Panel that he was aware of the concerns regarding rural crime, especially in the Bassetlaw area where two teams of specialists were deployed in addition to the use of automatic number plate recognition cameras (ANPR). The Commissioner spoke about the use of civilian investigators and informed the Panel of the intention to employ 100 more over the next two years to be used mainly in the field of online/cyber- crime.
The Panel asked the Commissioner about the increased expenditure on ‘Agency and contract services’ to £16.9m and asked if a breakdown between the two was available. The Commissioner replied that he felt expenditure in this area was too high and that it was an area of constant discussion. The Commissioner informed the Panel that he was committed to sharing back office functions and that a meeting with Northants and Leicestershire was planned for the following week. The Commissioner informed the Panel that it was thought agreement had been reached last May but then two Commissioners did not stand again for re-election meaning that the proposals needed to be revisited and the Commissioner stated that he hoped these more detailed proposals would be available soon.
The Panel asked the Commissioner about the Drug Fund reserve and questioned why there did not appear to be any use of this particular reserve in the past three years. The Commissioner explained that it was useful to have money in reserve for ad hoc joint project requests from County Council as well as being able to contribute to one off initiatives such as the fly-grazing problems in Newark which the Commissioner explained involved the grazing of horses without permission. The Commissioner informed the Panel that he would look at this reserve again but explained that there were strict criteria governing the expenditure, that he felt it was useful to have monies for new initiatives and that he welcomed any ideas for the City and County Councils.
The Panel asked the Commissioner about the Capital Programme, in particular the planned expenditure on the Bridewell and asked the Commissioner that if it was being upgraded because of a change to the Home Office standards would the Home Office be funding the works? The Commissioner replied that part of the problem with the capital programme was Page 9 of 115 6
based around IT costs with 43 forces using 43 different systems there was potential for consistency and though the lack of a timetable for the work has affected the delivery of the capital programme the aim was for continual improvement going forward. In terms of accommodation the Commissioner informed the Panel that the strategy was for a smaller, but higher quality, estate and with the exception of Bassetlaw all neighbourhood teams were now co-located resulting in a better service. The Commissioner informed the Panel that although the Bridewell building was relatively new it was now not up to standard with the design over many floors not conducive to either prisoner behaviour or staff morale, some of whom refer to the building as ‘Bride Hell.’ The Commissioner informed the Panel that no decision had been made but that the revenue costs were likely to be relatively high, that the plans would be studied to see if savings could be achieved while still safeguarding prisoners’ rights and that the magistrates would be involved in discussions about the complex as a whole. The Panel asked the Commissioner if there was a timetable in place regarding accommodation and the Commissioner replied that he had secured a degree of commitment form court colleagues and that a task group would be set up and that he hoped to submit a report to the Panel in autumn detailing progress. The Panel asked if the problem could be looked at in its totality pointing out that there were no custody facilities in the north of the county and referring to the issues in Mansfield and Newark. The Panel asked the Commissioner whether more cost effective solutions might be available. The Commissioner replied that there were no plan to re-visit issue of the custody suite in Worksop and there was no prospect of it re-opening in its present location and referred to the shared facilities in Retford and informed the Panel that he felt there was a strong argument for having a similar facilities in Worksop. The Commissioner reassured the Panel that the problem would not be looked at in isolation and that he was aware that there was low usage of the custody suites in Newark and Grantham and that potential savings existed. The Commissioner informed the Panel that the aim of the Ministry of Justice was to have one magistrates’ court in each shire county which would have significant implications for the estate in Mansfield.
Executive Mayor, Kate Allsop, congratulated the Commissioner on the £12m of savings achieved but informed him that she would not be supporting the 1.95% increase in the precept and urged the Commissioner to follow the example of Mansfield District Council who, despite suffering cuts in grant, had made efficiency savings which meant the council tax had not been increased at a time of austerity where families’ budgets were under pressure. The Commissioner replied that he understood the arguments but that in Nottinghamshire the 1.95% increase equated to less than 1p per day for households in Band D but because the majority of households in Mansfield were in Band A or B their increased contribution would be even less. The Commissioner informed the Panel that the results of the consultation undertaken showed that opinion was divided but that the majority of people were prepared to pay more if they received value for money. The Commissioner spoke of the Home Office stating that that police budgets were protected in cash terms if the precept were increased by 1.95% but that this did not take into account the fact that the scale of the crime problem in cities is bigger and that the precept needs to increase in the era of austerity.
Page 10 of 115 7
The Panel welcomed the Commissioner’s earlier appreciation for the increased expenditure by the City Council, expressed regret at losing the City division of the police force and told the Commissioner that the delivery of the community safety service had suffered as a result, especially at inspector level. The Commissioner replied that the Notts force has a high number of officers relative to other forces but that difficult choices still needed to be made and it was unlikely the numbers could be increased significantly in the short term. The Commissioner stated that the Chief Constable will look at territorial policing and that a debate was needed regarding the geographic location of officers, which in the city and districts were co-located but that the demands of community policing and partnership working required a different approach. The Chairman stated that once the Chief Constable had had time to study the Force the Panel would appreciate a report detailing the proposed changes to the new operating model. The Commissioner replied that the issue could be discussed at the Panel meeting on 24 April and the aim was to have a firmer view on the way forward by summer.
RESOLVED 2017/004
1. That the contents of both reports be noted.
2. That the proposed increase of the precept by 1.95% be supported.
Executive Mayor, Kate Allsop, requested that her vote dissenting against the above decisions be recorded.
The meeting closed at 3.18pm
CHAIRMAN
Page 11 of 115 8
APPENDIX
Police and Crime Panel – Consideration of Precept and Budget
The 2015/16 budget:
In the PCC’s opinion, how well has the budget been managed in 2016/17? Steps were taken including the appointment of a Head of Finance to address the issues in 2015-16. This has ensured expenditure will be delivered within budget; with a slight underspend for 2016-17.
Have there been any significant under or over spends? All have been managed within the existing budget.
Have the planned £12m of savings been achieved? Yes and additional costs have been absorbed, particularly as we have seen more police officers leave that initially budgeted.
With reference to the HMIC Efficiency report recommendations, are credible and achievable plans now in place for the new police operating model (including costed options for service delivery and clarity on the impact on services of each option)? Yes. There are credible plans in place to ensure delivery of the new operating model. The new Chief will probably review this plan.
The 2017/18 Budget (and associated precept)
Precept Report
What assurances has the PCC been given about the robustness of this year’s estimates, in light of the previous problems in 2015/16 and subsequent concerns raised by the HMIC? The issues of the previous year have all been addressed. As per above response.
P73 – para 2 – was there any scope to review the Tri-Force Collaboration business cases at an earlier point to better inform this year’s budget? Not at this stage. But the work has been awarded over £5m Transformation Funding from the HO to facilitate the change.
How much additional revenue will the proposed precept increase generate? Together with an increase in the tax base the 1.95% precept increase will generate an additional £3m and the decrease in grant totals £1.8m.
The recommendations in the Consultation Report underline the need for a clear communication plan to justify the increase in the precept setting how the additional revenue will be spent – can you clarify what the additional revenue will pay for? Reduction in grant, pay awards, inflation and additional focus on Tagging for Knife Crime, preventing demand and media campaigns in relation to sexual violence.
Page 12 of 115
Budget Report
How does the overall budget line up with the PCC’s identified priorities within the Police and Crime Plan? The budget facilitates the Police & Crime Plan.
What alternative options did you consider when setting the budget? How were decisions arrived at in order to decide between options? We have considered increasing council tax or not. However, the HO grant assumptions allow for a 2% precept increase so not to increase or increase at less than 2% would result on a greater decrease in resources available. Above 2% would trigger a referendum with significantly higher costs.
Therefore we chose to reprioritise budget to meet the £5.5m shortfall and the cost of minor priority investment.
How confident are you that the savings will be delivered? What processes do you have in place to monitor each strand? Confident. Reporting processes and improved management within the force finance team ensure regular updates and during month reporting when issues are identified.
P91 – planned premises costs – the projected expenditure does not appear to have reduced since last year – would you have expected to see greater savings from the rationalisation of the police estate at this point? This is dependent on property sales. We have seen significant reductions in previous years.
P91 – Premises costs – what has been the impact of the recent business rates re-evaluation? £17k extra based on the valuation list. However, this is offset from savings where buildings are being sold. Net saving £45k.
P91 - Planned expenditure on agency and contract services has increased from £13.1m in 2016/17 to £16.9m – can you explain the increase? The biggest element of this relates to the Tri Force Collaboration and preparation for the work being developed.
P93 – collaboration costs are set to increase by £1.2m – is it clear the level of efficiencies which collaboration is bring in? A significant amount of this relates to the move to Oracle Fusion (Cloud). The Business case details the payback in relation to this particularly as more forces join the collaboration.
P93-94 – Pensions – is this an error? The tri-annual revaluation took place in 2016 and takes effect from 1st April 2017 – have the employer contributions actually increased? Contribution rate has increased from 10.8% to 12.4%, but lump sum payments have reduced from £1.6m to £0.7m. Broadly a £50k increase in total after allowing for recruitment.
Page 13 of 115
P96 – table of efficiencies – are these all new savings or are some of these existing ones? At what point will the planned savings for 2018-19 to 2020- 21 (as detailed on page 115) be factored in? The efficiencies identified for 2017-18 are all new efficiencies. Work is well underway to deliver the estimated efficiency totals for 2018-2021. They only total £4.1m over the 3 years compared with £12m this year ne £5.5m next.
P97 – Annex 1 – table regarding payroll – the Police staff pay and allowances has dropped £9.5m from the figure quoted in 2016/17 – is this because PCSO pay and allowances were included within that figure last year? Yes they are contracted as staff.
P97 - Annex 1 – table regarding payroll – other employee expenses have increased by £0.7m – what do these relate to? Apprenticeship Levy £600k
P98 – can a similar breakdown of planned expenditure be provided for the Office of the PCC? The OPCC costs are broken down and included within the figures provided in Annex 1.
P102 – a number of the figures for the variations do not tally with the budget figures in last year’s report – e.g. there is a £4.2m reduction in Police pay and allowances not £5.2m as quoted – can you clarify the correct figures please? The budget was revised in year to take account of efficiencies (previously shown separately).
P102 – Police staff pay and allowances - can you give the Panel more information about the Police Investigation Officer posts and clarify whether these are classed as Police Officers or Police Staff? A review of the role of warranted officers identified that Investigations could be undertaken by civilian staff (PIOs) and result in savings being achieved and ensure that PO’s would be visible within the community.
The Medium Term Financial Plan
How strong or reliable are the assumptions made in the preparation of the plan? Based on the most reliable information from the HO.
How robust is the medium term plan in terms of delivering the PCC’s aims, objectives and priorities? The MTFS is the financial strategy detailing the resources available. The Force has to achieve the requirements of the Police & Crime Plan within the resource envelope that will be available.
P110 – table of Funding Available – there are no projections for the collection fund for 2018-19 to 2020-21 – could a similar surplus figure to recent years be expected? Since the localisation of Council Tax decisions there has been a significant surplus, but as the billing authorities tax base estimates stabilise the surplus is likely to reduce and we could return to the fluctuations between surplus and deficits. The surplus is about 0.5% of the total budget and whilst reserves remain low will be used to stabilise the financial viability of the Force.Page And 14 to offund 115 change.
Reserves Strategy
P74 - Could you clarify whether the level of reserves is felt to be adequate or not (this is the same level as last year when it was felt to be adequate)? At the time of writing the report last year the Force was confident of reducing the requirement for reserves. This did not happen and as a result a warning was given to the force in relation to financial viability. The predicted underspend this year together with the council tax surplus being transferred to reserves provides further resilience. The trigger for major concern is if reserves were to drop below the £7m that the general reserve is risk assessed as requiring.
P129 – Appendix A do you feel that the reserves proposed follow a consistent methodology – e.g. the probability of Major Incidents is rated Medium, Medium and Low but the figure is set at the maximum level, whereas Partnership Support is rated as Medium to High but set close to the minimum? The risk of losing Partnership support is taken into account when pulling the budget together. The Force communicates closely with Partners providing support. So whilst it could be medium to high based upon the financial constraints of partnership organisations the most at risk at any point in the year would be £1.2m.
Reports in previous years referred to the difficulties faced in paying back the reserves – what assurances has the PCC received that reserves can begin to be paid back from 2017/18 as planned? There is no planned repayment of reserves in 2017-18. The only increase is the transfer of council tax surplus. The planned repayment of reserves is expected from 2018-19 initially at just £1m per annum.
P132 and 133 – Appendix C(i) and C(ii) – there appears to be no use of the general reserves and little call on the earmarked reserves planned in forthcoming years. The balance of earmarked reserves is due to increase in the next four years from £9.748m to £14.745 – could it be argued that rather than increase the precept you could choose to not increase these reserves? For an organisation of nearly £200m the level of earmarked reserves is very low and the general reserve would be the last defence against financial non-viability. Given the difficulties in recent years where £10m has been taken from reserves it is imperative that we replace these used reserves. Notts is a medium size force but has one of the lowest levels of reserves across all forces. We are also significantly funded by grant compared with other forces and therefore reductions in grant impact on us to a greater level.
Page 15 of 115
Capital Programme and Treasury Management Strategy
How robust are the business cases for each project? All business cases go through a robust process in being costed up.
P136 - Appendix A – when cross-referenced with last year’s Capital Programme report, the total project cost up to 2019-20 (including prior years’ costs) has risen from £25m to £43m. In the budget workshop the PCC talked about his plans to make the Capital Programme more realistic and feasible but the tables on p144 and p146 suggest that this will continue to increase up to 2019, with total core funds estimated to increase until 2021.
Can the overall strategy with the Capital programme be clarified? The biggest change between the years is the need for major investment in a new Custody suite. The existing facilities at Bridewell do not meet the new HO standards. Alternatives such as making the Bridewell compliant have all been considered during the year and a new facility is considered as the best most future proof solution. This project will cost in the region of £20m.
To what extent will some of these projected costs be subject to reductions as a result of the Tri-Force Collaboration? Tri force collaboration will reduce revenue costs rather than capital. The programme includes significant investment in standardising IT systems across the three forces. Transformation Grant will not cover 100% of these costs. However, efficiencies in purchasing together will be realised.
If not featured in this latest Plan, does that mean that the other projects included in last year’s plan were completed – e.g. Bulwell Refurbishment? There is a mixture of events. Some projects have obviously been completed others are being reassessed. For example Bulwell was offered up as a saving to the capital programme during the year as an alternative offer had been made. This is being explored and a new business case will be provided.
What percentage does the slippage from 2016/17 represent from the budgeted programme for 2016/17? 23%.
Based on past experience, how confident are you that £2.9m of slippage plus £7.2m of new requests in 2017/18 will be spent in 2017/18? As with all capital projects slippage is inevitable. Most of our capital programme is reliant on partners and we can only proceed at the speed of the slowest. Changes are also identified as projects progress and these also result in slippage. We do identify slippage earlier in the year and adjust the budgets and forecasts accordingly.
Page 16 of 115
Page 17 of 115 4 NOTTINGHAMSHIRE POLICE AND CRIME PANEL
24 APRIL 2017
WORK PROGRAMME
Purpose of the Report
1. To give Members an opportunity to consider the work programme for the Panel, suggest further topics for inclusion (see appendix A) and consider the proposed cycle of meeting dates for July 2017 – June 2018.
Information and Advice
2. The work programme is intended to assist with the Panel’s agenda management and forward planning. The draft programme will be updated and reviewed regularly in conjunction with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Panel and is subject to detailed discussion with the Chief Executive of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC).
3. The work programme is updated to include specific focus on each of the seven Strategic Priority Themes included in the Police and Crime Plan at each meeting of the Panel (except the February meeting at which the precept and budget is considered).
4. Once the future meeting dates are agreed then discussions will take place with the Chair and Vice-Chair and the OPCC to schedule future agenda items as appropriate. Suggestions about future agenda items are welcome from Members and the PCC in the meantime.
5. Dates of future Panel meetings beyond the 5 June 2017 annual meeting have now been drafted, in consultation with the OPCC. This aims to better link the schedule of Panel meetings with the Police’s performance reporting timetable.
The proposed dates are as follows:-
Monday 17 July 2017 – 2pm Monday 18 September 2017 – 2pm Monday 20 November 2017 – 2pm Wednesday 7 February 2018 – 10am Monday 23 April 2018 – 2pm Monday 4 June 2018 – 2pm TBC
The following dates are proposed for the two Budget Workshops:-
Budget Workshop with PCC - Friday 26 January 2018 – 10am Meeting between relevant finance and support officers (see para 6 below) – Thursday 1 February 2018 – time TBC
Page 18 of 115
Budget Workshop with Chief Finance Officer - Friday 2 December 2018 – 10am
6. This revised schedule means that the Panel will meet in July rather than December/January as in previous years. The only concern about this approach is that, if we follow the current practice of not bringing a PCC Update to the precept / budget meeting in February, this would result in the Panel not receiving an update for the five months between the November 2017 and April 2018 meetings. It is therefore proposed that a PCC Update be brought to the February budget meeting and also that any other performance and finance updates made public in that period be shared by the OPCC for e- mail circulation to the Panel Members.
7. It is proposed that the precept / budget meeting in February takes place on Wednesday 7 February at 10am rather than Monday 5 February at 2pm. This is to try and build more time into the process to enable the papers to be finalised (including those elements notified by the various Councils) and to factor in more time for the OPCC to deal with any Members’ queries. With that aspect in mind, it is also proposed that the Chief Finance Officer and Support Officers from the host authority meet with relevant officers from the OPCC and the Force to try and clarify any factual inaccuracies and anomalies ahead of the proposed second Budget Workshop. If the workshop dates are agreed then such a meeting could be arranged for Thursday 1 February.
8. Once the meeting dates are agreed then discussions will take place with the Chair and Vice-Chair and the OPCC to schedule future agenda items as appropriate. Suggestions about future agenda items are welcome from Members and the PCC.
Other Options Considered
9. All Members of the Panel are able to suggest items for possible inclusion in the work programme.
10. Members may decide on a different cycle of meetings and workshop dates.
Reasons for Recommendation/s
11. To enable the work programme to be developed further.
RECOMMENDATION/S
1) That the work programme be updated in line with Members’ suggestions as appropriate.
2) That consideration be given to the proposed future cycle of meeting dates and budget workshops.
Page 19 of 115
Background Papers and Published Documents
1) Minutes of the previous meeting of the Panel (published).
For any enquiries about this report please contact:-
Keith Ford, Team Manager, Democratic Services, Nottinghamshire County Council [email protected] Tel: 0115 9772590
Page 20 of 115
APPENDIX A Nottinghamshire Police and Crime Panel
Work Programme (as at 4 April 2017)
Agenda Item Brief Summary
5 June 2017 – 2.00pm Appointment of Chairman and To appoint the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Vice-Chairman Panel for the 2017/18 year.
Review of Balanced The Panel will review its membership to see whether Appointment Objective. any actions are required in order to meet the requirements for:- the membership to represent all parts of the police force area and be politically balanced; and members to have the skills, knowledge and experience necessary.
Police and Crime The Panel will review and scrutinise any decisions and Commissioner’s update, other actions taken by the Commissioner on an including Budget and Efficiency ongoing basis. The Panel will also consider the Programme update, details of Commissioner’s response to the key performance and decisions taken and overview of financial issues within the Force. Force Performance). To include update on PEEL Effectiveness Assurance Monitoring Template Complaints update Regular update on any complaints received against the Police and Crime Commissioner. Specific focus on one of the Panel to focus on a specific Priority Theme – ‘Theme 5 Police and Crime Plan Strategic – Reduce the threat from organised crime’. Priority Themes. Police Complaints Process Update on the implications of the Police and Crime Bill in relation to specific issue of how Police complaints are dealt with (issue raised at November 2016 Panel meeting).
Page 21 of 115
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE POLICE AND CRIME PANEL 24 APRIL 2017 5
REVIEW OF MEMBERSHIP –INDEPENDENT CO-OPTED MEMBERS
Purpose of the Report
1. To consider the Panel’s independent co-opted membership.
Information and Advice
2. Each Police and Crime Panel is required to co-opt at least two independent members.
3. As part of the initial establishment of the Nottinghamshire Police and Crime Panel, it was previously agreed that appointments should be sought from local magistrates and Nottinghamshire Probation Trust as a means of bringing in relevant knowledge from those areas. The two independent co-optees in question (Suma Harding and Christine Goldstraw OBE respectively) were initially appointed in December 2012.
4. With Secretary of State agreement, the Panel thereafter co-opted an additional two independent members (Bob Vaughan-Newton and Rizwan Araf) in October 2013 in order to capture a more diverse range of skills and experience.
5. As a means of retaining the existing knowledge, to ensure greater continuity of membership (in light of the various changes to the elected member representation) and to help the Panel’s membership reflect the communities it serves, it was agreed in June 2015 to extend the co-option of all four independent co-optees for a further two years to June 2017.
6. It should be noted that one of the independent co-optees, Christine Goldstraw OBE, has also subsequently been elected as the Chair of the Panel.
7. The Panel Arrangements state:-
Independent members will be appointed for a term of 2 years. There will be no restriction on the overall time period that an independent member can serve on the Panel.
8. The views of elected Panel Members on this issue have been sought and the majority have responded. These responses have underlined an appreciation for the skills and experience which the existing independent co-optees bring to the Panel and general support for extending the terms of office of all four existing independent co-optees for a further two years.
9. In order to assist with succession planning and to give a staggered approach to future recruitment and induction, it is proposed:-
Page 22 of 115 1
a) that all four independent co-optees be offered an initial further two year term of office up to May 2019;
b) that the issue be considered again by the Panel in April 2018, with a view to:-
i) ceasing the membership of two of the four current independent co- optees from May 2019;
ii) extending the membership of the other two independent co-optees to May 2020;
iii) starting the process to recruit four new independent co-optees, with a view to two new independent co-optees taking up office from June 2019 and two more taking up office from June 2020.
Other Options Considered
10. The Panel could decide to seek to replace one or more of the independent co- optees at this point but that would result in the loss of skills and experience which elected Members have indicated brings value to the work of the Panel.
11. The Panel could decide to reduce the number of independent co-optees to the legal minimum of two. However, the Secretary of State has previously approved this increase in independent co-optees, on the basis that this helped to meet the Panel’s balanced membership objectives and optimised the Panel’s overall range of skills, experience and perspectives.
Reason/s for Recommendation/s
12. To enable Members to consider the Panel’s independent co-opted membership.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1) That the Panel agrees:-
a) to offer each of the four current independent co-optees a further two year term of office up to May 2019;
b) to consider this issue again in April 2018 with a view to:-
i) ceasing the membership of two of the four current independent co- optees from May 2019;
ii) extending the membership of the other two independent co-optees to May 2020;
iii) starting the process to recruit four new independent co-optees, with two taking up office from June 2019 and two more taking up office from June 2020.
Page 23 of 115 2
Background Papers and Published Documents
1) Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (published) 2) Nottinghamshire Police and Crime Panel’s Panel Arrangements (published) 3) Minutes of the Police and Crime Panel meetings of 24 June 2013, 30 October 2013, 16 December 2013 and 15 June 2015.
For any enquiries about this report please contact:
Keith Ford, Team Manager, Democratic Services, Nottinghamshire County Council Tel: 0115 9772590 E-mail: [email protected]
Page 24 of 115 3
Page 25 of 115 For Consideration Public/Non Public* Public Report to: Police and Crime Panel Date of Meeting: 24th April 2017 Report of: Paddy Tipping Police and Crime Commissioner Report Author: Kevin Dennis E-mail: [email protected] Other Contacts: Kevin Dennis Agenda Item: 6
POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER’S UPDATE REPORT – TO JANUARY 2017
1. PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
1.1 This report presents the Police and Crime Panel (Panel) with the Police and Crime Commissioner’s (Commissioner) update report.
1.2 In accordance with section 13 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility (PR&SR) Act 2011 and subject to certain restrictions, the Commissioner must provide the Panel with any information which the Panel may reasonably require in order to carry out its functions. The Commissioner may also provide the Panel with any other information which he thinks appropriate.
1.3 This report provides the Panel with an overview of current performance, since the last report in December 2016 which focused on data to September 2016. This is the fourth report relating to the Commissioner’s refreshed Police and Crime Plan (2016-18) which includes minor amendments to performance measures and the RAGB rating.
1.4 It should be emphasised that the action taken by the Chief Constable may be the result of discussions held with the Commissioner during weekly meetings. The Commissioner is briefed weekly on all performance exceptions by his office staff which is then discussed with the Chief Constable the same week.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 The Panel to note the contents of this update report, consider and discuss the issues and seek assurances from the Commissioner on any issues Members have concerns with.
3. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 To provide the Panel with information so that they can review the steps the Commissioner is taking to fulfil his pledges and provide sufficient information to enable the Panel to fulfil its statutory role.
Page 126 of 115
4. Summary of Key Points
POLICING AND CRIME PLAN – (2016-18)
Performance Summary
4.1 Performance against refreshed targets and measures across all seven themes is contained in the Performance section of the Commissioner’s web site to January 2017.a This report details performance from 1st April to January 2017.
Reporting by Exception
4.2 The Commissioner’s report focuses on reporting by exception. In this respect, this section of the report relates exclusively to some performance currently rated red i.e. significantly worse than the target (>5% difference) or blue, significantly better than the target (>5% difference).
4.3 The table below shows a breakdown of the RAGB status the Force has assigned to the 22 targets reported in its Performance and Insight report to January 2017. In previous reports there were 33 measures reported on but this year only measures with specific targets will be assigned a RAGB status.bc
4.4 It can be seen that only 14 (64%) of these measures are Amber, Green or Blue indicating that the majority of measures are close, better or significantly better than the target. Currently 36% (8) of targets reported are Red and significantly worse than target.
KEY to Performance Comparators Performance Against Target Jun-16 %Total Aug-16 %Total Sep-16 %Total Jan-17 %Total Significantly better than Target >5% R 7 32% 3 14% 1 5% 1 5% difference Better than Target 4 18% 4 18% 5 23% 3 14% ± Close to achieving Target (within 5%) 8 36% 9 41% 8 36% 9 41% Significantly worse than Target >5% T 3 14% 5 23% 7 32% 8 36% difference No Longer Measured 0 0% 1 5% 1 5% 1 5% Total 22 100% 22 100% 22 100% 22 100%
4.5 One measure i.e. the ‘Percentage of victims and witnesses satisfied with the services provided in Court’, taken form the Witness and Victim Experience Survey (WAVES) is no longer active and therefore it is not possible to report on this measure.
a http://www.nottinghamshire.pcc.police.uk/Document-Library/Public- Information/Performance/2017/Performance-and-Insight-Report-to-January-2017.pdf b A number of performance measures are monitor only and it has been agreed that it is not appropriate to assign a RAGB to such measures unless the measure is + or – 10%. c New RAGB symbols have been used for this report in case readers are limited to black and white print. Page 227 of 115
4.6 The table below provides an overview of one target (5%) graded blue.
R Objective / Target – RAGB Status Blue Jun-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Jan-17 1. A reduction in the number of non-crime related mental health 80.00% 94.10% 94.10% 54.50% patients detained in custody suites 4.7 The table below provides an overview of the 8 targets (36%) graded red, one more than the previous Panel report of which most relate to volume crime and have increased largely due to the back record conversion of crimes in order to comply with the National Crime Recording System (NCRS). This is explained more fully later in the report (see section 6.23).
T Objective / Target RAGB Status Red l Jun-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Jan-17
1. 90% of victims of crime are completely, very or fairly satisfied with 83.70% 83.00% 82.80% 81.80% the service they have received from the police
2. A 10% increase in the number of POCA orders compared to 2016-16 -3.70% -16.80% -21.00% -16.80% 3. Increase BME representation within the Force to reflect the BME 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.48% community (11.2%) 4.An increase in the Early Guilty Plea rate compared to 2015-16 N_Avai -6.60% -6.60% -6.30% (Magistrates Court) l 5. An increase in the positive outcome rate for Victim-Based Crime -0.80% -3.50% -5.10% -5.90% where Threat, Harm or Risk is high e.g. serious sexual crime 6. New: A reduction in All Crime compared to 2015-16 -9.50% -6.60% -1.80% 10.10% 7. New: A reduction in Victim-Based Crime compared to 2015-16 -8.90% -6.70% -2.30% 8.10% 8. New: To reduce the levels of rural crime compared to 2015-16 and -6.70% -1.00% 2.20% 9.30% report on: 1.1. Rural and 1.2. Urban 4.8 Panel Members require the Commissioner’s update report to:
1. Explain the reasons for improved performance and lessons learned for blue graded measures and
2. Reasons/drivers for poor performance and an explanation as to what action is being taken to address underperformance in respect of red graded measures.
4.9 The Force has provided the following responses to these questions in sections 5 and 6 below.
5. R Blue Rated Measures (significantly better than Target >5% difference)
BL1. A reduction in the number of non-crime related mental health patients detained in custody suites - Improved Performance and Reason/Lessons Learned
5.1 Data is year-to-date to the end of December 2016. 10 people have been presented to custody as a first place of safety this year. This compares to a total of 22 in the same period of last year and represents a 54% reduction. Previously, this measures was higher (-94.1%).
Page 328 of 115
5.2 In the current year-to-date period, a total of 362 people were taken to the section 136 mental health suite, which is slightly lower than the 364 in the same period last year. Detainees at custody account for approximately 7% of all mental health patients dealt with.
5.3 As previously reported, this significant improvement in performance is a direct result of the introduction of the Street Triage Team which has previously been reported on. However, the scheme has been in operation now for a number of years and it will become more challenging to maintain the level of reductions seen thus far, hence the fall in performance from 94.1% in September to 54.5% in December 2016.
5.4 In January 2016 Nottinghamshire Police Control Room collaborated with the mental health trust to place a mental health nurse in the control room 09:00- 16:00 Mon-Fri to supplement the Triage Car.
5.5 The benefits of this pilot are that control room staff and frontline officers can be passed information to provide the correct response based on the persons mental health status. The Control Room Nurse can coordinate with mental health services to unlock better help for the member of public. Post incident they can refer the person to services or update their current care team of the incident. This then allows them to act to de-escalate the person’s mental health issue.
5.6 The Triage Team continue to work with beat teams and health on repeat callers to assist with information sharing and appropriate decision making based on the whole picture of the subject. There has been a significant reduction in the use of police time attending repeat callers and where appropriate a number of prosecutions have been successful to those who having every opportunity to engage with services continue to offend / repeat call.
6. Red Rated Measures (lsignificantly worse than Target >5% difference)
R1. 90% of victims of crime are completely, very or fairly satisfied with the service they have received from the police
6.1 Satisfaction for incidents reported in the 12 months to November 2016 is at 81.8%, which contrasts with 85.5% for the same period last year. Current performance is outside of expected bounds.
6.2 In terms of the aspects of satisfaction, ease of contact and treatment remain high in the mid-nineties (96.6% and 94.3% respectively) for all user groups, and these positions remain unchanged from the figures reported for the last two months. There has been a month on month deterioration in satisfaction levels for keeping people informed and in November it reduced again to 68.6%.
6.3 The Force has commissioned colleagues at Nottingham Trent University to carry out a bespoke piece of analysis on victim satisfaction service delivery, exploring what the Force is doing well and where it can improve – with a focus on keeping victims updated. In addition performance for Victim Satisfaction was discussed in more detail at a recent Force Performance Board meeting.
Page 429 of 115
6.4 Kept Informed is the key driver behind the declining trend in overall satisfaction, and it was noted that this effect is not limited only to Vehicle Crime, with victims of Burglary and Violence offences also less satisfied with this aspect than they were a year ago. Reassuringly however, the Force performs well compared to peers, with performance above the average for its Most Similar Group of forces for overall satisfaction and kept informed.
6.5 In order to address the low ratings for kept informed, the Force will be reviewing its victim updates process to ensure that officers are providing timely updates to victims in line with the Victim’s Code of Practice.
R2. A 10% increase in the number of POCA orders compared to 2015-16
6.6 The Force recorded 13 fewer Confiscation and Forfeiture Orders year-to-date compared to last year, this equates to a reduction of 6.8%, placing the Force nearly seventeen percentage points below the 10% increase target. It should be noted that any decision to apply for an order is made by the Crown Prosecution Service and not the Police. A decision to grant an order is one for the court alone. Furthermore, an order is not granted until sentencing and in many cases there can be a gap of many months between point of arrest and an order being granted.
6.7 In the current year-to-date period the Force has recorded 19 offences of profiting from or concealing knowledge of the proceeds of crime. POCA orders will be generated from a number of other offences types however, not just from these.
6.8 Performance information for the value of orders is currently unavailable.
R3. Increase BME representation within the Force to reflect the BME community (11.2%)
6.9 There has been no deterioration in this measure, but recently under the Force’s revised RAGB rating it is rated red because the 11.2% representation as defined by the 2011 Census has not been achieved. BME headcount is 4.8% for Police Officers and 4.3% for Police Staff and overall its 4.48%. When the Commissioner took office in 2012 representation was 3.7% so there has been an improvement overall. Austerity and the 2 year recruitment freeze has hampered progress in this area although there have been improvements with representation with Police Cadets (26%) and Special Constables (8%).
6.10 The Commissioner has been working closely with the BME Steering Group since 2013 and established a BME Working Group to advance BME recruitment and selection, BME advancement and retention as well as other issues which may adversely affect attraction of BME candidates, i.e. stop and search and diversity training of officers. Members were provided with a case study on this work listed at Appendix A of the 18th April 2016 Panel meeting.
6.11 To achieve an 11.2% BME representation an additional 144 BME police officers would need to be recruited. The Commissioner worked closely with the Chief Constable during the recruitment of Police officers in January 2017. Prior to this a range of positive activities were undertaken to attract applicants from BME communities under Operation Voice which will included talent spotting, buddying, Page 530 of 115
awareness events, marketing publications. Of the 660 applications received for Police Officers 66 (10%) was from BME communities; of the 131 applications for PCSO posts, 12.98% were from BME communities.
6.12 A further recruitment process has opened up for Police officers with a closing date of 24th March 2017 and to encourage applicants from BME communities an awareness event was held on 11th March 2017 at the Afro-Caribbean National Artistic (ACNA) Centre in Nottingham. There will be further recruitment ongoing throughout the year, including more events encouraging a diversity of applications.
R4. New: An increase in the Early Guilty Plea rate compared to 2015-16 (Magistrates Court)
6.13 Data for this measure is released quarterly, with the next update due April 2017. Both Crown and Magistrates Courts are recording a reduction in early guilty plea rates in quarter two compared to last year, and rates remain below the national average with Magistrates being 6.3% below target and graded red.
6.14 Crown Court performance in quarter 2 was 38.0%. The national average for Crown Court for quarter 2 was 39.4%, meaning that Nottinghamshire is performing slightly below the national average.
6.15 The Magistrates Court rate for quarter 2 was 68.4% which is an improvement of 7.2pp since quarter 1 (61.2%). This has led to an improvement in the national position from 42nd to 29th but Nottinghamshire are still slightly below the national average of 70.4%.
6.16 There are a number of factors that would influence the early guilty plea rate in the Magistrates’ Court. The East Midlands region is working with the Efficiency and Effectiveness Board to look at these issues in the round. They may relate to file quality, to Non electronic IDPCd, defence practitioner’s understanding around Transforming Summary Justice (TSJ), lawyer reviews being timely, or robust court management. All of these issues feature in the Court Observations Action plan (managed via the East Midlands Criminal Justice Board [EMCJB]) borne out of a series of observations we led earlier in the year which have proved very useful in understanding key system wide issues.
6.17 In Nottinghamshire the Force is about to launch a performance model that will see files checked against an agreed set of questions, staff allocated to ‘fix’ issues before submission and immediate feedback to officers upon review. Alongside that a whole series of officer in the case (OIC)/Sgt based data will become available to operational supervisor to manage not just staff but the particular issues that reflect file quality. This was scheduled to go live mid-October in Nottinghamshire. The Force is also now feeding back to operational teams weekly reviews by the Crown Prosecution Service as part of the National Case Quality Assessment. As previously stated file quality is but one issue and the Action Plan contains actions for each agency so that the whole system improves going forward.
d IDPC is colloquially known as information and evidence in the case. Page 631 of 115
R5. An increase in the positive outcome rate for Victim-Based Crime where Threat, Harm or Risk is high e.g. serious sexual crime
T Objective / Target RAGB Status Red l Jun-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Jan-17 5. An increase in the positive outcome rate for Victim-Based Crime -0.80% -3.50% -5.10% -5.90% where Threat, Harm or Risk is high e.g. serious sexual crime 6.18 In the absence of a recognised measure for High Threat, Harm or Risk, Nottinghamshire Police are not in a position to report on this specific target. The information provided is for all Victim-Based Crime.
6.19 The Force has recorded 2,494 fewer positive outcomes for Victim-Based Crime this year compared to last. The current year-to-date positive outcome rate has improved slightly to 17.5% compared to 23.4% in the same period of last year.
6.20 The NCRS audit has impacted on the rate of positive outcomes. The audit process resulted in an increase in the number of crimes created that are closed without a positive outcome. Increased NCRS compliance means that many more incidents which are devoid of victims or witnesses are now recorded as crimes even though the prospect of detection (positive outcome) is highly unlikely from the outset.
6.21 Additional analysis of positive outcomes performance has been commissioned by the Force Performance Board and will be discussed at the April 2017 meeting.
R6. New: A reduction in All Crime compared to 2015-16 R7. New: A reduction in Victim-Based Crime compared to 2015-16 R8. New: To reduce the levels of rural crime compared to 2015-16
T Objective / Target RAGB Status Red l Jun-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Jan-17 6. New: A reduction in All Crime compared to 2015-16 -9.50% -6.60% -1.80% 10.10% 7. New: A reduction in Victim-Based Crime compared to 2015-16 -8.90% -6.70% -2.30% 8.10% 8. New: To reduce the levels of rural crime compared to 2015-16 and -6.70% -1.00% 2.20% 9.30% report on: 1.1. Rural and 1.2. Urban 6.22 The above three targets have all been significantly impacted by the back record crime conversion which took place during quarter 3 (2016-17) to ensure compliance with the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS). A lengthy explanation was provided in the December 2016 Panel meeting report (section 6.22) followed by a verbal explanation to the Panel by Chief Superintendent Mark Holland.
6.23 The table above shows the trend i.e. that the Force started the year with a relatively high crime reduction across all three indicators, but since September 2016 this changed in line with the back record crime conversion activity. It can be seen that as of 31st January 2017, Total Crime is 10.1% up compared to the same period last year.
6.24 Monthly volumes between September and November 2016 peaked to the highest levels recorded in the last five years as a result of the proactive NCRS audit
Page 732 of 115
programme. As a result of this change in process, the recorded crime volume remains at a higher level and this is expected to continue and become the new normal level. The Total Crime volume in January 2017 was 21.8% higher than last January, which equates to 1,253 additional crimes being created in the month.
6.25 Victim-Based crime has increased by 8.1% (4,436 offences) this year, while Other Crimes Against Society have increased by 28.3% (1,712 offences) over the same period. The increase in Other Crimes Against Society is driven by a 77.2% increase in Public Order offences, the majority of which were recorded as a result of the NCRS audit.
6.26 Nevertheless, the crime increase in Nottinghamshire is significantly less than some forces; a review of the latest Iquanta crime data to January 2017 indicates that the Force is still less than the national average with some forces experiencing increases of over 35% with violence against the person being the main driver increasing 70%. Also, to our knowledge, Nottinghamshire is the only force to have carried out a back record conversion, which means the Nottinghamshire position is even better, comparatively.
NCRS and HMIC Crime Data Integrity Inspections Update
6.27 The table below lists the current outcome grades for HMIC Crime Data Integrity Inspections. Of the 7 forces inspected thus far, most (3) have been deemed inadequate, 2 require improvement and only 2 are deemed good because compliance was over 90%.
Assessment Compliance 2017 Grade Rate % Avon and Somerset Constabulary: Crime Data Integrity inspection 2016 Requires
– published February 2017 Improvement 89.56 Devon and Cornwall Police: Crime Data Integrity inspection 2016 –
published February 2017 Inadequate 81.52 Northumbria Police: Crime Data Integrity inspection 2016 – published Requires
February 2017 Improvement 92.72 Merseyside Police: Crime Data Integrity inspection 2016 – published
February 2017 Inadequate 84.16 2016 Greater Manchester Police: Crime Data Integrity inspection 2016 –
published August 2016 Inadequate 85.49 Staffordshire Police: Crime Data Integrity inspection 2016 – published
August 2016 Good 91.02 Sussex Police: Crime Data Integrity inspection 2016 – published August
2016 Good 94.59
6.28 There are no forces deemed outstanding as this would require a compliance rate of over 95%. It will be noted in the table above that whilst Northumbria had an overall compliance rate of 92.72%, HMIC find a number of unrecorded serious crimes, such as violence and sexual offences including rape. In addition, the force had not recorded all reported crimes of modern slavery thus adversely impacting the overall grade.
6.29 Whilst the NCRS audit is now complete and all additional crimes from the audit have been recorded, the Force has implemented a daily audit process in order to Page 833 of 115
maintain compliance with NCRS. Internal dip sampling suggests that the Force’s NCRS compliance is high and if maintained at this level when the HMIC inspection takes place in the very near future, it is anticipated that the Force would meet the criteria to be assessed as Outstanding.
HMIC PEEL EFFECTIVENESS INSPECTION 2016
6.30 On 2nd March 2017 Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), published its PEEL Effectiveness (2016) report following its inspection of the Force in September last year. HMIC reviewed the Force’s approach to preventing and investigating crime and antisocial behaviour, tackling serious and organised crime, managing offenders and protecting those most vulnerable. The table below provides a summary of the assessment in three key areas.
6.31 It can be seen that the overall assessment is ‘Requires Improvement’ and this is due in the main to the ‘Inadequate’ grading given to ‘protecting the vulnerable and supporting victims’ as the two other areas were graded ‘Good’.
6.32 The Commissioner accepts the findings of this report and is assured that a number of immediate steps were taken at the time of the inspection to ensure that vulnerable people were protected and processes implemented since then, which are designed to address the issues of concern.
6.33 However, in order to ensure that every critical aspect of the HMIC report including comments, areas for improvement, areas of concern and recommendations are all considered and responded to, a detailed template has been prepared and the Commissioner has asked the Chief Constable to provide him a written response for each point so he can be fully assured that improvements are being made in every area. Appendix A contains a copy of the template to be completed. The completed template will be submitted at the June meeting.
6.34 The Commissioner has a statutory duty to provide HMIC and the Home Secretary with a written response to this report within 56 days, the Commissioner will use this template to help prepare his letter.
Page 934 of 115
Holding the Chief Constable to Account
6.35 The Commissioner is represented at the key Thematic, Partnership and Force Local Performance board meetings in order to obtain assurance that the Force and Partners are aware of the current performance threats, and are taking appropriate action to address the emerging challenges. Should there be any issues of concern these are relayed to the Commissioner who holds the Chief Constable to account on a weekly basis.
6.36 In addition, the Commissioner meets quarterly with the Head of Investigations and Intelligence and Head of Operations to gain a deeper understanding of threats, harm and risk to performance. The next meeting will be held on 3rd April 2017.
6.37 Panel Members have asked if a case study could be prepared for each meeting. Previous case studies relating to (1) Shoplifting, (2) the Victims Code, (3) Improving BME Policing Experiences, (4) Hate Crime and Knife Crime (5), Stop and Search (6) Rural Crime have been prepared. For this meeting, a case study has been prepared in respect of the new victim services CARE (see Appendix B).
Activities of the Commissioner
6.38 The Commissioner continues to take steps to obtain assurances that the Chief Constable has not only identified the key threats to performance but more importantly that swift remedial and appropriate action is being taken to tackle the problems especially in the Priority Plus Areas in the County and High Impact Wards in the City. Key activities are reported on the Commissioner’s web site.e
DECISIONS
6.39 The Commissioner has the sole legal authority to make a decision as the result of a discussion or based on information provided to him by the public, partner organisations, Members of staff from the Nottinghamshire Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (NOPCC) or Chief Constable. The Commissioner’s web site provides details of all significant public interest decisions.f
6.40 Panel Members have previously requested that the Commissioner provide a list of all forthcoming decisions (Forward Plan) rather than those already made. This Forward Plan of Key Decisions for the OPCC and the Force has been updated and is contained in Appendix C.
7. Financial Implications and Budget Provision
7.1 The Force has indicated that finance information will only be provided on a quarterly basis when the outturn is reviewed and this will go into a separate report. However, there is a financial report submitted at this Panel meeting.
e http://www.nottinghamshire.pcc.police.uk/News-and-Events/Latest-News.aspx f http://www.nottinghamshire.pcc.police.uk/Public-Information/Decisions/Decisions.aspx Page10 35 of 115
8. Human Resources Implications
8.1 None - this is an information report.
9. Equality Implications
9.1 None
10. Risk Management
10.1 Risks to performance are identified in the main body of the report together with information on how risks are being mitigated.
11. Policy Implications and links to the Police and Crime Plan Priorities
11.1 This report provides Members with an update on performance in respect of the Police and Crime Plan.
12. Changes in Legislation or other Legal Considerations
12.1 The Commissioner publishes a horizon scanning documentg every two weeks and can be downloaded from his website. The horizon scanning undertaken involves reviewing information from a range of sources, including emerging legislation, government publications, audits and inspections, consultation opportunities and key statistics and research findings, in order to inform strategic planning and decision making locally.
12.2 A significant piece of recent legislation is the Policing and Crime Act 2017h which received Royal Assent on 31st January 2017 the provisions of which include: Places a statutory duty on police, fire and rescue and emergency ambulance services to collaborate Enables PCCs to take on responsibility for fire & rescue service governance where local case is made
st Schedule A1 to the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 came into force 31 January 2017 enabling governance business cases to be developed with immediate effect (APACE guidance pending). Provisions in relation to Collaboration Agreements, PCCs taking on role of FRA, fire and rescue service inspection and Fire Safety inspections come into force 3rd April 2017 Reform police disciplinary & complaints systems to strengthen public confidence & police integrity
g http://www.nottinghamshire.pcc.police.uk/Public-Information/Horizon-Scanning/Horizon-Scanning.aspx h https://www.gov.uk/government/news/policing-and-crime-bill-receives-royal-assent Page11 36 of 115
Provisions for guidance come into force 3rd April while provisions to strengthen PCC role will come into force by summer 2018 as part of wider police integrity reforms Reform pre-charge bail to prevent people remaining on bail for lengthy periods without scrutiny Gives chief officers flexibility to confer a wider range of powers on police staff and volunteers (no longer need to be employed e.g. CPO, PCSO) Conferring Home Secretary powers to specify police ranks in regulations & enable a flatter rank structure Extend the Police Federation’s core purpose to cover the public interest and making it subject to FOI (Freedom of Information requests) Enable HM Inspectorate of Constabulary to undertake end-to-end inspections of the police Improve response to those in mental health crisis by reforming police powers under s135 and s136 Mental Health Act This includes stopping police detention among those under 18 and restricting adult detention Amends PACE Act 1984 to ensure that 17 year olds detained in police custody are treated as children New section 47ZK (rules) of PACE (Part 4) came into force on 31st January 2017. Other provisions come into force 3rd April 2017. College of Policing briefing materials on changes to pre-charge bail laws Increase in the maximum sentence for stalking involving fear of violence from 5 to 10 years’ imprisonment Improve protection for victims of forced marriage and providing them with lifelong anonymity when reporting Mandates that offences relating to CSE cover streaming / transmission of indecent images of children Enables statutory guidance to local taxi / private hire licensing authorities re. protection of vulnerable people Confer pardons for individuals living or deceased who were convicted of now abolished gay sex offences Closes loopholes in Firearms Acts and issues statutory guidance in assessing suitability for firearms certificates Make it an offence to possess pyrotechnic articles at qualifying musical events
Reform the late night levy to make it easier for licensing authorities to implement Provisions for come into force 6th April
Page12 37 of 115
13. Details of outcome of consultation
13.1 The Deputy Chief Constable has been consulted on this report.
14. Appendices
A. Assurance Monitoring Template - Peel Police effectiveness 2016 B. Case Study – Victim Services CARE C. Forward Plan of Key Decisions for the OPCC and the Force
15. Background Papers (relevant for Police and Crime Panel Only)
Police and Crime Plan 2016-2018 (published) Peel: Police Effectiveness 2016 - Nottinghamshire Police
For any enquiries about this report please contact:
Kevin Dennis, Chief Executive of the Nottinghamshire Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner [email protected]
Tel: 0115 8445998
Philip Gilbert, Head of Strategy and Assurance of the Nottinghamshire Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner [email protected]
Tel: 0115 8445998
Page13 38 of 115
Page 39 of 115
APPENDIX A ASSURANCE MONITORING TEMPLATE PEEL Police effectiveness 2016
Report Page ACTION TAKEN TO ISSUE OF CONCERN Ref Ref ADDRESS CONCERN Notts has 30% more calls for assistance than national average 313 v 1 Page 5 240/1000 pop – may explain why they have to keep abstracting neighbourhood officers to response duties 2 The force‟s understanding of the communities it serves, the risks they Page 7 face and their priorities is limited. 3 Local teams still do not have sufficient information to enable them to Page 8 improve their understanding of local communities Although neighbourhood officers attend incidents of anti-social behaviour and emergency incidents in their area they are also often 4 Page 8 taken away, on a pre-planned basis, to support response teams in other areas. This affects their ability to work with partner organisations on longer-term problem-solving and crime prevention. The force does not evaluate operations consistently and does not 5 always identify and share good practice across the force or with Page 8 partner organisations; doing so would help it improve its approach to preventing crime and anti-social behaviour. It continues to demonstrate an insufficient understanding of the nature 6 and scale of vulnerability and does not work well enough with partner Page 8 organisations to share information to prevent crime and protect vulnerable victims. The use of risk assessments in the control room at initial contact and 7 the recording of the rationale for attendance are inconsistent. When Page 8 the control room and response teams are busy, how quickly the police respond is too often determined by the availability of response officers Page 401 of 115
rather than the risks faced by victims. This weakness is compounded by the force‟s current shortcomings in recording crime properly. The force cannot be confident that all victims are getting the service they need when they need it. 8 Page Nottinghamshire Police recently identified serious problems in its 13 compliance with the national crime-recording standards (NCRS). During fieldwork, HMIC identified serious concerns with crimes still not being recorded for those incidents that are not allocated to an 9 Page officer…they include crimes of domestic abuse where victims have not 13 been visited, in some cases for many weeks, and are not recorded as a crime. 10 Page Nottinghamshire Police has a limited detailed understanding of the 14 communities it serves and the risks they face and their priorities. Although neighbourhood officers attend incidents of anti-social behaviour and emergency incidents in their area they are also often 11 Page taken away, on a pre-planned basis, to support response teams in 14 other areas. This affects how well they work with partner organisations on longer-term problem-solving and crime prevention. We said that the force should ensure that its local teams have sufficient information available to enable them to improve their 12 Page understanding of local communities. This situation has not improved.. 14 local policing teams still do not have access to a comprehensive range of information. In some areas there is a good understanding, for example, the 13 Page community cohesion team in Nottingham has good links with minority 15 communities, including Polish, Kurdish and Somali. However, this understanding is not widespread 14 Page There are inconsistent local arrangements to meet with communities 15 and sometimes a limited understanding of their priorities. Advertised meetings, for example beat surgeries, are often poorly 15 Page attended and the force website is not always kept up to date on the 15 actions taken and outcomes achieved. Ipsos MORI to conduct a survey of attitudes towards policing between 16 Page July and August 2016. The survey indicated that there has been a 15 decrease in public satisfaction with Nottinghamshire Police Some neighbourhood officers are often taken away from their primary role of problem solving and working with people, in order to provide support to response teams. Officers and representatives from 17 Page community safety partnerships, who work closely with the police, 16 explained to us that this sometimes has an adverse effect on their community work and impedes their ability to prevent crime and tackle anti-social behaviour There has been a considerable decrease (56 percent) in the number 18 Page of recorded repeat victims of anti-social behaviour. However, the force 16 is not certain about the reasons for this as an evaluation of different tactics and „what works‟ is still developing Page 19 20 Prosecutions prevented or not in the public interests (3.2%) much Figure higher than national average (1.8%) 4 Control room and response teams are not always able to deal 20 Page effectively with calls which require a prompt response. While the 21 desired staffing levels are based on a demand management model, the actual number of officers and staff is considerably below this level. Other demands on police time, such as looking after very vulnerable 21 Page people who are in custody, are also having an adverse effect on the 21 ability to investigate crime initially. 22 Page All customer service advisers are trained to assess the risks in each 21 call for service, using a structured triage process to decide on how a
Page 412 of 115
call is graded, but the use of the process and the recorded rationale for attendance is inconsistent. When risk has been appropriately assessed by the call-taker, some calls are downgraded when the control room is very busy and there are not enough police resources available to respond 23 Page promptly. Some calls that have originally been assessed as needing 21 a prompt response are being downgraded to a slower response especially when the perpetrator is not at the scene, with an officer visiting much later by appointment. This means some high-risk victims do not receive a visit for several days. Also, many unassigned incidents remain open for weeks, with no 24 Page crime recorded, when staff in the force control room make repeated 21/22 attempts to arrange appointments to see the victim. Supervisors and managers provide oversight and review but they do 25 Page not always record these observations on investigation plans 22 consistently The force has the ability to look at handsets, but where this analysis is required for evidential purposes there can be a delay of up to three 26 Page months while this is produced. 23 National Report: (Page 57) 6th highest Digital backlogs per 1,000 population. Victims are offered the opportunity to provide a victim impact statement but investigators do not routinely use victim care plans to 27 Page ensure continued safeguarding1 for victims and witnesses. Of 31 25 cases examined, where a safeguarding plan would be expected, only one third of these documented an on-going safeguarding plan. Where there are positive forensic „hits‟ against suspects, they are pursued relentlessly with the aim of detaining them within 24 hours. 28 Page However, some arrest actions are placed on the response briefing and 26 tasking system (BATS) and due to call demand these may not be dealt with for some time. The force aims to conduct criminal record checks2 as standard practice on all arrested foreign nationals but at the time of inspection 29 Page this was not being achieved; these would provide enhanced 26 information on criminality and allow the force to identify and manage risk better 30 Page The force has worked to improve supervision rates but after a 27 successful recruitment process, gaps still remain in staffing levels. There is a lack of capacity within the response officer teams during 31 Page periods of high demand which is affecting the force‟s ability to respond 28 effectively to some calls for service. Forces define a vulnerable victim in different ways. This is because there is not a standard requirement on forces to record whether a 32 Page victim is vulnerable on crime recording systems. Some forces use the 30 definition from the government‟s Code of Practice for Victims of Crime,3 others use the definition referred to in ACPO guidance4 and the remainder use their own definition.
1 The term safeguarding is applied when protecting children and other vulnerable people. The UK Government has defined the term „safeguarding children‟ as: “The process of protecting children from abuse or neglect, preventing impairment of their health and development, and ensuring they are growing up in circumstances consistent with the provision of safe and effective care that enables children to have optimum life chances and enter adulthood successfully.” 2 The National Police Chief‟s Council (formerly ACPO) criminal records office manages criminal record information and is able to receive/share information with foreign countries in relation to foreign offenders arrested within the United Kingdom. 3 Code of Practice for Victims of Crime, Ministry of Justice, 2013. Available from www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/254459/code-of-practicevictims-of-crime.pdf
4 The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) is now the National Police Chiefs‟ Council (NPCC). ACPO Guidance on Safeguarding and Investigating the Abuse of Vulnerable Adults, NPIA, 2012. Available from: www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/major-investigation-and-public-protection/vulnerable- adults/
Page 423 of 115
The force has an insufficient understanding of the nature and scale of how to identify and protect those who are vulnerable. In HMIC‟s 2015 effectiveness inspection report, we said that the force needed to 33 Page improve its response to child sexual exploitation by developing its 31 understanding of the nature and scale of the problem, and ensuring that preventative activity is properly co-ordinated. The force has a draft child sexual exploitation problem profile. Nottinghamshire Police suffers from a lack of data from partner organisations to understand all the issues fully, as it did last year. The 34 Page draft profile does not refer to the child sexual exploitation problem 31 profile produced by the regional analyst or the four recommendations contained within it that are specific to Nottinghamshire Police The missing and absent persons problem profile does not cross- 35 Page reference adequately the links for young people who go missing with 31 the risks of child sexual exploitation, as it was developed after the draft child sexual exploitation profile. The force has identified serious problems in its crime-recording 36 Page compliance with National Crime Recording Standards (NCRS). It has 32 plans to improve crime-recording at the first point of contact but these are not in place yet and the problem continues. The identification of vulnerable and repeat victims is inconsistent at the first point of contact. For example, the use of flags and qualifiers on 37 Page force IT systems to indicate if a person is vulnerable or is a repeat 32 victim of crime is inconsistent, and a check on databases for repeat victims and offenders relies on the same spelling or input of name details. The assessment of threat and risk and the subsequent rationale to 38 Page allocate a grading to the call is not always fully recorded, and there is 32 no clear recorded supervision of the rationale being checked on the incident log. The force reports that on most days there are 130 unallocated incidents and these are described as lower-risk incidents. During our fieldwork, we found 247 unallocated incidents, none of which had 39 Page been assessed to see if a crime needed to be recorded. Of these, 61 33 were domestic incidents and when these were examined, 23 incidents were immediately brought to the attention of the force because of serious concerns regarding welfare and safeguarding. 40 Page There is limited recorded supervision for these unallocated incidents. 33 There are significant delays in attending some of these incidents; one domestic related incident had still not been attended after four 41 Page weeks and the victim did not wish to have any further police contact. 33 Appointments are booked with victims and witnesses, but sometimes these appointments take place a considerable time after the incident. The appointments which involve a domestic abuse incident are 42 Page booked for a two-hour slot, which means that although this gives 33 sufficient time to conduct an initial investigation, it means that there is sometimes a lack of resources to cover other appointments. Decisions not to attend incidents or delays in attending are too often 43 Page based upon lack of resources rather than an assessment of threat, risk 33 and harm. HMIC has concerns with the recording of the THRIVE assessment. Although staff recognise individuals who are vulnerable, they do not 44 Page always fully record the circumstances of their assessment on the 33 incident log, which makes it harder to assess if the correct response has been provided 45 Page Supervisors who oversee calls and their subsequent grading do not 33 see the full picture unless they also listen to the original call. When the
Page 434 of 115
control room and response teams become busy, some of these calls are re-graded to a slower response and this may not always be appropriate. This means the force‟s ability to understand the level of risk victim‟s face is limited. HMIC is seriously concerned about the number of incidents which remain unallocated and which involve victims who are vulnerable, particularly domestic abuse victims. At the time of our inspection, there were 61 domestic-related incidents where the victim had yet to 46 Page receive a visit from the force, the oldest of which dated back four 33 weeks. This level of backlog is unacceptable. It means that the force is not giving vulnerable victims any form of protection for several days and is missing valuable opportunities to collect evidence and move an investigation forward. However, in this inspection we found that the understanding of stalking and harassment behaviour is still poor; there was one recent case 47 Page which showed an alarming history of stalking by the offender having 35 been resolved by the inappropriate use of a harassment warning. (PG: despite the training given). However, risks to children within the household are not always identified well and the „voice‟ of the child is not always recorded. There 48 Page is some confusion among response officers about when a child referral 36 form should be completed and the fact that they should actually talk to the child rather than just record their living conditions. In this inspection, we found the backlog had been considerably reduced, but there were 171 DASH forms still awaiting secondary 49 Page assessment by domestic abuse specialists. We found that only those 37 cases involving victims at high risk are thoroughly assessed and there is no escalation process in terms of repeat victimisation. Moreover, repeated incident reports relating to domestic abuse but graded as standard risk would not receive any additional scrutiny or 50 Page review by partner organisations. It is unclear whether children‟s 37 services would escalate any child referrals within this context, so it is therefore possible that nothing would be done to limit the effect on a child‟s welfare in respect of exposure to on-going domestic abuse. However, there is inconsistency across the force area in how the processes work and the type of information shared between the multi- agency safeguarding hub (MASH) located in the county area, involving Nottinghamshire County Council and the domestic abuse referral team (DART), covered by Nottingham City Council. For example, in the MASH there are daily „Encompass‟ meetings to review all high and 51 Page medium-risk domestic abuse incidents where a child lives within the 37 family unit and a referral is made to the education authorities. This allows for the early exchange of information and a safeguarding function with schools. There is no equivalent process in the city, and, in addition, city-based partner organisations which were co-located with police have moved out to other premises. This reduces the opportunities for sharing information and working together. The force does not refer all high-risk cases to multi-agency risk assessment conferences (MARACs). High risk domestic abuse victims are those who are at risk of murder or serious harm and the 52 Page criteria differ between the county and city areas for those cases that 39 will and will not be considered. In this inspection we again saw that this triage process does not involve all partner organisations and is contrary to national guidance. Three high-risk referrals from the police and nine high-risk referrals from other partner organisations were removed from the 53 Page MARAC agenda. The force reports that although it is willing to meet 39 more often some partners state that they are unable to provide sufficient resources. This has been recorded formally in those partner agencies concerned but there remain serious concerns about the Page 445 of 115
process of triaging high-risk cases out of MARAC meetings. Although the link to the strategic assessment is not clear. It has not yet adopted the MoRiLE risk assessment process, which is the preferred model of assessment within the East Midlands region. The force 54 Page currently assesses the threat and risk from organised crime using a 45/46 risk assessment methodology which does not consider the capability or capacity of the force to deal with the problem, and is limited in how it assesses vulnerability in its communities. In last year‟s report we identified that, although the mapping process is carried out thoroughly by the regional team, it is sometimes unnecessarily lengthy. The time taken to complete this mapping 55 Page process has not improved over the last twelve months and, while this 46 does not impede the force in carrying out urgent activity against OCGs, it means that the full range of tactics available through regional arrangements may not be immediately used. Data for the profile has been drawn primarily from OCG mapping and there are some references to ‘partner perspectives’, but these lack detail. The force explains that limited information is provided by 56 Page partner organisations and further partnership data is required to 47 improve the profile and expand it so that it covers the whole force area. This means the profile is limited in how it can assist the police and partner organisations to identify the effect of organised crime groups. Nottinghamshire Police also has some specialist capabilities of its own in these areas which are additional to those provided at a regional 57 Page level; however, it has yet to complete an action plan in response to a 48 recommendation in HMIC‟s 2015 report on Regional Organised Crime Units35 about the potential for duplication of specialist capabilities between the force and the EMSOU. Operation Vanguard team: While staff in this team are aware that the force‟s priorities are to cut crime and keep people safe, they have limited knowledge of the national serious and organised crime priorities. Work assignments do not routinely assess the threat, harm 58 Page and risk of the organised crime group or its impact on local 49 communities. HMIC is concerned that the Operation Vanguard team does not currently use a structured approach to risk management to identify priority offenders. As a result, those potential offenders who pose the most risk to the community may not be identified and the risks that they pose may not be managed effectively. National Report: A digital forensic kiosk is a smaller facility for the retrieval of forensic information from digital devices so can situated in 59 Page police stations and custody suites. Cambridgeshire, Cheshire, 58 Gloucestershire, GMP, Humberside, Merseyside, North Wales and Nottinghamshire all excluded from this graph as data not supplied. National Report: Data from 31 forces indicate that, as of 30 June 2016, there were a total of 67,069 persons suspected of crimes who 60 Page had not had their details circulated on the PNC. Cumbria, Dyfed- 62 Powys, Gloucestershire, Gwent, Hertfordshire, City of London, Northamptonshire, North Wales, Nottinghamshire, Sussex, Thames Valley and Wiltshire forces could not provide this data. National Report: Number of outstanding suspects per 1,000 population on force-based systems: Cumbria, Dyfed-Powys, Gloucestershire, Gwent, Hertfordshire, City of London, 61 Page Northamptonshire, North Wales, Nottinghamshire, Sussex, Thames 63 Valley and Wiltshire forces were unable to provide data on the number of outstanding suspects on force-based systems; therefore, they are excluded from this graph. 62 Page National Report: Figure 23: Notts has the highest proportion of 70 registered sex offenders awaiting assessment, as a percentage of
Page 456 of 115
those currently managed as registered sex offenders in force – as at 1 July 2016. National Report: Figure 25: Percentage point change in the 63 Page percentage of police-recorded crime with a vulnerable victim identified, 77 by force, for the 12 month to 31 March 2015 compared to 12 months to 30 June 201651 Notts unable to provide this data. National Report: Figure 28: Rate of „Evidential difficulties: victim does 64 Page not support action‟ outcomes recorded in the 12 months to 30 June 85 2016 for domestic abuse-related offences. Notts unable to provide this data. National Report: We found a widespread lack of recognition of gangs: 26 forces informed HMIC that, as of 1 July 2016, they did not manage any urban street gangs or were unable to specify the number. 65 Page Even some large metropolitan forces informed HMIC that they were 109 responsible for a very low number of gangs. These included forces which cover large cities, such as Greater Manchester Police, Nottinghamshire (none see figure 34) Police and Hampshire Constabulary
Areas for improvement Report Page ACTION TAKEN TO ADDRESS ISSUE OF CONCERN Ref Ref CONCERN The force should work with partner organisations to Page 1 share information and improve its understanding of local 18 communities. The force should evaluate and share effective practice Page routinely, both internally and with other organisations, to 2 18 continually improve its approach to the prevention of crime and anti-social behaviour. The force should ensure that its focus on crime Page prevention is not undermined by the redeployment of 3 18 neighbourhood officers and staff to undertake reactive duties way from their assigned neighbourhood area. The force should ensure that officers and staff understand how children can be affected by domestic Page abuse, and that there is a process to ensure they 42 4 undertake safeguarding actions and make referrals to other organisations which have a role in safeguarding The force should improve the way it works with partner organisations to share information and safeguard victims Page of domestic abuse and their children, specifically in 42 5 relation to addressing the backlog of cases that require further assessment and referral to other organisations. The force should improve its approach to safeguarding victims of domestic abuse who are assessed as high Page risk. It should review the referral process to multi agency 42 6 risk assessment conferences to ensure that victims of domestic abuse are not being placed at risk as a result. The force should work with partner organisations to Page 7 improve its understanding of the nature and scale of 42 vulnerability within its local area. The force should further develop its serious and Page organised crime local profile in conjunction with partner 8 51 organisations to enhance its understanding of the threat posed by serious and organised crime. 9 Page The force should complete an action plan that sets out 51 the steps it will take to maximise use of regional
Page 467 of 115
organised crime unit capabilities, minimise duplication at force level, and ensure that the use of shared regional organised crime unit (ROCU) resources is prioritised effectively between forces in the East Midlands region. The force has assessed all the threats identified in the Page Strategic Policing Requirement, although there is a lack 54 of depth and breadth to some of the assessments 10 because they lack partnership data and input.
Cause of concern Report Page ACTION TAKEN TO ADDRESS ISSUE OF CONCERN Ref Ref CONCERN Nottinghamshire Police is failing to respond appropriately to some people who are vulnerable and at risk at the Page initial point of contact. This means that early 1 41 opportunities to safeguard victims and secure evidence at the scene are being missed, and victims are being put at risk.
Recommendations Report Page ACTION TAKEN TO ADDRESS ISSUE OF CONCERN Ref Ref CONCERN Improves its initial assessment and response to incidents involving all vulnerable people, by ensuring that staff Page working in call handling understand and complete 1 41 assessments of threat, risk and harm to appropriate standards, consistently record them on force systems and are supervised effectively; Force response to incidents is determined by this initial Page 2 assessment of risk in order to ensure victims are kept 41 safe, and not by the availability of response officers
Page 478 of 115
APPENDIX B
Nottinghamshire Victim CARE (Cope and Recovery Empowerment)
Case Study
17 March 2017
Introduction
The PCC‟s first theme in his Police and Crime Plan is to „Protect, support and respond to victims, witnesses and vulnerable people.‟ This case study explains how the new Victim Care supports this objective.
The PCC receives a Victims‟ Services‟ Grant from the Ministry of Justice (“MoJ”) to commission local victim support services, including victim-initiated restorative justice, in line with the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime 2015 and to support victims to achieve cope and recover outcomes.
This Case Study provides information about the PCC‟s Victim CARE support service, which provides support to all victims who do not access support through specialist domestic or sexual violence and abuse services.
National Context
The Victims‟ Services‟ Grant is part of the Government‟s strategy to ensure that victims are at the centre of the criminal justice system. The strategy was implemented following a Government consultation in 2012, Getting it Right for Victims and Witnesses. MoJ confirmed the introduction of a mixed model of national and local commissioning of referral and support services for victims and published the Victims’ Services Commissioning Framework in May 2013. The Framework recommends outcome based commissioning to enable victims to cope with the immediate impacts of crime; and recover from the harm experienced.
The Code of Practice for Victims of Crime 2015 (“the Victims‟ Code”) gives victims a legal right to receive a minimum standard of service from the criminal justice system and includes requirements for assessment of need, information about victim services and quick referral to support. Victims of serious crime and vulnerable, intimidated and persistently targeted victims receive an enhanced service. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-code-of-practice- for-victims-of-crime
Local context
In Nottinghamshire over 140,000 people, and 20 out of every 100 adults were likely to have been victims of some form of crime in 2015/16 - a level which has fallen significantly over the last ten years (from 28 in every 100 adults). Despite this positive long-term trend, the Crime Survey for England and Wales indicates that the risk of being the victim of crime in Nottinghamshire (19.8%) increased marginally during 2015/16 compared to continued reductions in the England and Wales average (14.6%).
With around 39,700 individual victims being recorded by the police in 2015/16, the majority (approximately 74%), of crimes go unreported to the police, often because the victim deems them to be minor, trivial or that little could be done in response. In these cases, the impact of crime on the victim is likely to be minimal.
Page 48 of 115 1
In other cases, crimes go unreported to the police as the victim deems them to be a private or personal matter (15%), too inconvenient to report (5%), lacks trust in police and the criminal justice system (2%) or is afraid of reprisal (2%). Other victims may even be unaware that what they have experienced is a crime. It is in these cases that the police, victim services and other agencies are working to increase trust and confidence and identify and respond to vulnerability and hidden harm.
The PCC‟s Victims‟ Strategy outlines a vision for victims:
“Victims and survivors in Nottinghamshire are resilient and less likely to be re- victimised; empowered to cope and recover from crime and anti-social behaviour by timely and effective victim-centred support from local services, families and communities”.
The Strategy is on the PCC‟s website: http://www.nottinghamshire.pcc.police.uk/Document-Library/Our- Work/Victims/Nottinghamshire-Victims-Strategy.pdf
The PCC‟s vision for Restorative Justice (RJ) is:
“RJ activity is victim focused and is offered and available at any stage of the victim‟s journey, ensuring their safety, and enabling them to better cope and recover from crime and anti-social behaviour.”
Local victim support services
The PCC inherited a number of specialist domestic and sexual abuse support services as well as a service delivered by Victim Support to help other victims of crime. From 2014 onwards he worked with the City and Council Councils, and clinical commissioning groups where possible, to co-commission new specialist domestic and sexual violence and abuse support services. These services are either in place or are being co-commissioned during 2017.
For all other victims, following procurement, the PCC funded Victim Support and REMEDI to deliver support and restorative justice.
During 2015, the PCC became concerned that for historical reasons the Victim Support service was insufficiently targeted to the victims who needed the most help; and that separate victims and restorative justice services were not providing the best value for money. He therefore commissioned an independent review, conducted by RSM Tenon. The review‟s findings included:
victims with protected characteristics often found help in community services that were not adequately resourced for supporting victims to cope and recover; engagement in non-traditional support services is high among people with protected characteristics though they may not self-identify as victims and/or are unlikely to perceive this support as victim related; there are a significant number of highly valued services within community based organisations that support victims which are unrecognised; victims need to understanding, empathy, choice and familiarisation and trust. The police were considered a barrier for many communities with protected characteristics; community based support and advocacy should form the basis of any future service delivery model as this would add value and improve victim outcomes; there was greater need for a more flexible and fluid model that allows victims to „dip in and out‟ of support, similar to their experiences with other community services.
Page 49 of 115 2
The findings, and a new draft delivery model, were disseminated and consulted upon at a consultation event in March 2016. The event was widely attended by stakeholders from grassroots community groups, voluntary sector providers, Nottinghamshire Police, National Probation Service and community safety partnerships. There was very strong support at the event for RSM Tenon proposed model and in particular for the proposed strong role for community organisations in delivering support for victims.
Nottinghamshire Victim CARE
Following the consultation in July 2016 the PCC published an invitation to tender for a provider to deliver Nottinghamshire Victim CARE. The aim of the Service is to provide a wide range of victim-centred and outcomes focussed restorative and other support to empower victims and survivors to cope and recover from crime, anti-social behaviour, hate incidents and identity theft.
The model, which entirely based on the RSM proposal, is as follows:
Nottinghamshire Victims’ CARE
Referral function
(located within Nottinghamshire Police)
Community point Self service website
Information, advice, self Community point referrals, Victims' victim
Community point CARE Hub friendly information, advice, community emotional and practical point search support, advocacy, Community tool restorative justice point
Community point
Community point
The referral function enables timely and accurate referrals from Nottinghamshire Police into Nottinghamshire Victims‟ CARE. The self-service website, which is currently in development, will provide a dedicated web presence for Nottinghamshire specific victims‟ services, providing relevant and up to date details of services to support local victims. It will offer information and advice about being a victim and searchable details of all local victims support services, an immediate electronic self-referral option and a search tool for victims to locate community points.
Community points will be a diverse and numerous range of victim friendly community based groups and organisations able to empower victims to cope and recover from crime. The Page 50 of 115 3 community points will be funded and trained by the hub to support victims. Initially they will market victim support services widely within their communities under the Nottinghamshire Victims CARE brand, accept self referrals, conduct a needs assessment, and accompany victims, if required, to the hub for more specialist support. In the longer term some community points may also provide ongoing support to empower victims to achieve cope and recover outcomes.
The victims‟ CARE hub will empower victims to cope and recover from crime and be more resilient to future crime through the provision of expert victim support as well as enabling victims‟ community points to support victims more effectively. The hub will also provide victim-initiated specialist restorative justice support where required by victims.
Catch 22, working with Restorative Solutions, won the PCC‟s contract to deliver Nottinghamshire Victim CARE. The new service began operating in January 2017. It supports children, young people and adults who have been harmed as a direct result of criminal conduct, as well as the people who have suffered the most harm as a result of anti-social behaviour (ASB), hate incidents and identity theft1. Victims do not need to report the crime to the police to receive help.
Previous information from victims services was fragmented, with little information on victims‟ outcomes. The first year of Nottinghamshire Victim CARE will be a baseline year to capture comprehensive information about Nottinghamshire‟s victim profile and outcomes achieved.
What Nottinghamshire Victim CARE has achieved (January – mid March 2017)
At the time of writing the service has received 1856 referrals, mostly through Nottinghamshire Police, but also from Action Fraud, Witness Care, other victim services from outside the county and self-referrals. The number is expected to grow as the service beds in. Referrals have been received across most crime types (excluding domestic and sexual violence) with the highest numbers for assault and burglary.
Victims are contacted within 48 hours (24 hours if the victim has enhanced entitlements under the Victims‟ Code) and are supported with information and advice, emotional and practical support and advocacy to access to service when appropriate.
Catch 22 has held two initial stakeholder engagement meetings in Worksop and Bulwell with community groups and partners. Both meetings generated interest from organisations in becoming community points and Catch 22 is progressing this area of the service.
As the Victim CARE was mobilised very quickly and Catch 22 are now developing the performance indicators and outcomes for the service. This will include further work to analyse gaps in provision, particularly around disability, religion, sexuality and geography. Gaps will be targeted by Victim CARE to establish links and community points to ensure victims are able to access support when they need it.
1 Anti-social behaviour, hate incidents and identify theft do not always fall into the definition of crime. Page 51 of 115 4
APPENDIX C Decisions of Significant Public Interest: Forward Plan March 2017
Thematic Model Business cases Ref Date Subject Summary of Decision Cost (£) Contact Officer Report of Where OPCC / available. Force 1.1 March 2017 Strategic Service Strategic Service Specification to inform TBC Supt Paul Winter Force Specification: Local Policing allocation of resources in each thematic Police Staff area within the resource envelope of the MTFP.
Contracts (above £250k) Ref Date Subject Summary of Decision Cost (£) Contact Officer Report of Where available. OPCC / Force 2.1 March 2017 Selected Medical Practitioner Provision for a Force medical >£250k Ronnie Adams Force practitioner. EMSCU 2.2 March 2017 Face to Face Interpreters Regional procurement led by >£250k Ronnie Adams Force Leicestershire however there will be a EMSCU requirement for each Force to sign individual contracts 2.3 March 2017 SEIU Storage and IT storage solution >£250k Ronnie Adams Force Infrastructure EMSCU 2.4 March 2017 Airwave Contract Extension Extension to the current contract to cover <£250k Ronnie Adams Force transition to ESN EMSCU 2.7 May 2017 BWV – Head mounted Procurement and implementation of £275,200 Ronnie Adams Force BWV equipment and associated EMSCU
Page 52 of 115
software for Firearms Officers.
2.5 TBC ESN Devices National Programme for the replacement TBC >£250k Ronnie Adams Force of Airwaves EMSCU 2.6 TBC BMS Contractor Replacement of the Building >£370,000 Ronnie Adams Force Management Systems (BMS) that EMSCU control the heating and cooling of buildings.
Estates, ICT and Asset Strategic Planning 3.1 March 2017 Jubilee House, Arnold Revised proposal to relocate Arnold £16,000 per Tim Wendels, Force Police Station to Gedling BC premises at annum revenue. Estates and Jubilee House rather than the originally Estimated Facilities agreed proposal to move to Sir John £65,000 capital. Robinson House.
3.2 March 2017 Worksop Police Station Surrender of Lease of former Custody Capital receipt Tim Wendels, Force Suite at Worksop Police Station. from surrender Estates and to be subject of Facilities negotiations with freeholder. 3.3 April 2017 Review of Neighbourhood Review of the future of small, The review will Tim Wendels, Force Offices neighbourhood offices and drop in assess potential Estates and facilities used mainly by Neighbourhood savings. Facilities Teams. 3.4 April 2017 Bunkered Fuel Sites Decommissioning, repair and addition of Business Case Tim Wendels, Force bunkered fuel sites around awaiting Estates and Nottinghamshire. ratification from Facilities Finance 3.5 April 2017 Hucknall Police Station Lease of replacement premises for Business Case Tim Wendels, Force Neighbourhood Team and Training in course of Estates and facilities. Sale of existing Police Station. preparation. Facilities Page 53 of 115
3.6 September Nottingham Bridewell Replacement of the Bridewell. Project Team Tim Wendels, Force 2017 working up Estates and details and Facilities/Ch. Supt. costings for final Julia Debenham – Business Case. EMCJS.
Workforce Plan and Recruitment Strategies Ref Date Subject Summary of Decision Cost (£) Contact Officer Report of Where OPCC / available. Force None to report.
Page 54 of 115
Page 55 of 115 For Information / Consideration / Comment / Decision (delete as appropriate) Public/Non Public* Report to: Police & Crime Panel Meeting Date of Meeting: 24th April 2017 Report of: Paul Dawkins Report Author: David Machin E-mail: [email protected] Other Contacts: Mark Kimberley Agenda Item: 7
Finance Performance & Insight Report for 2016/17 as at January 2017
1. Purpose of the Report
1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the projected financial outturn position against the key financial performance headlines for Nottinghamshire Police as at 31st January 2017 (Period 10).
2. Recommendations
2.1 It is recommended that the contents of the attached report at Appendix A are noted.
2.2 Background
The full year net revenue budget for 2016/17 is £191,166k (as below). This is split the Force Budget £185,438k and the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) £4,729k.
At the end of Quarter Three the revised outturn is:
Q1 Q2 Latest Forecast Forecast Forecast Variance to Entity Budget Outturn Outturn Outturn Budget Q1 Q2 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000
Force 185,438 184,797 184,920 184,488 (950) (309) (433) OPCC 4,729 4,729 4,729 4,729 - - -
190,166 189,526 189,649 189,216 (950) (309) (433)
1 Page 56 of 115 Analysis of the 2016/17 Revised Revenue Budget Outturn
2016/17 Revised Revenue Budget Outurn £189.2m
Operations £67.0m
Intelligence & Investigations £38.0m Collaboration £36.7m
Corporate Services £42.7m
OPCC £4.7m
Corporate Services Operations 2016/17 Revised Revenue Budget Outturn £42.7m 2016/17 Revised Revenue Budget Outturn £67.0m
HR £8.5m Fleet £3.9m Response £26.3m Other £6.6m
Assets £6.3m CIP £0.3m IS £8.8m
Contact Management £12.5m
Other £10.8m Corp Dev £2.3m Prisoner Handling Neighbourhood PSD £1.5m Finance £0.8m £5.4m £15.9m
Collaboration Intelligence & Investigations 2016/17 Revised Revenue Budget Outturn £36.7m 2016/17 Revised Revenue Budget Outturn £38.0m
Command £3.0m Intelligence £7.6m Legal £0.5m EMOpSS £10.6m Archives & Forensics & CSI Exhibits £1.2m £2.5m
L&D & OHU DIEU £1.0m £1.2m EMCJS £8.9m Reducing Reoffending & Prevention £1.5m Major Crime £2.8m
Public Protection Crime Support MFSS £2.3m £10.8m EMSOU & Special Team £1.0m Branch £7.5m Other £0.2m EMSCU £0.2m Crime £11.9m
Lead Force for Collaboration 2016/17 Revised Revenue Budget Outturn 2016/17 Revised Revenue Budget Outturn £36.7m £189.2m OPCC £4.7m Other £4.7m Police Pay Nottinghamshire £101.0m £0.2m Collaboration contributions £9.9m Cheshire £2.3m Lincolnshire £19.5m Comms & Computing £8.0m
Derbyshire £3.0m Transport costs £6.1m
Premises costs £6.0m Leicestershire Staff Pay £38.0m £11.7m Overtime £4.2m PCSO Pay £6.6m
3. Reasons for Recommendations
3.1 To update the Chief Officer Team and the Office of the PCC on the Force’s budgetary position for 2016/17 and complies with good financial management and Financial Regulations.
2 Page 57 of 115
4. Summary of Key Points
Revenue
4.1 The Quarter Three review of revenue expenditure is forecasting an under spend in the Force budget of £950k with a projected revenue spend of £184,488k; and an on budget position within the OPCC of £4,729k. Appendix A provides a more detailed position.
It is assumed that any underspends within the OPCC will be transferred to OPCC’s Commissioning reserve.
The table below shows the projected Force (including externally funded and seconded officers/staff) variances against the 2016/17 budget as at Quarter Three with analysis of the monthly movements and other potential changes to give a projected outturn position as at Period 10:
Nottinghamshire Police Total: Q3 Forecast Variance Analysis Against the Original Budget Variance to Budget £'000 £'000 £'000 Note
Pay & allowances 4.2 Police officer (2,109) Staff 176 PCSO (1,112) (3,045) Overtime 4.3 Police officer 62 Staff 71 PCSO 5 138 Other employee expenses 25 (2,882)
Premises costs (3) Transport costs (339) 4.4 Comms & computing 510 4.5 Clothing, uniform & laundry (64) Other supplies & services 2,486 4.6 Collaboration contributions 1,253 4.7 Medical retirements 693 4.8 Capital financing (703) 4.9 Other 920 4.10 4,753 Income (2,821) 4.11 Provisional Q3 outturn (950)
Potential Period 10 changes (100) Period 10 Projected Outturn (1,050)
3 Page 58 of 115
The year to date saving of £2,669k against the forecast as shown in Appendix A is largely due to phasing of income from the Home Office, comms & computing and a reduction in the Venson’s pence per mile (PPM) charges; externally funded and seconded officers of £1,831k; and undertaking monthly accruals in preparation for year end.
As at the end of January savings on staff pay & allowances, have largely been offset by overtime and savings across other lines of expenditure are phasing, although there are expected to be some reduced recharges in respect of Forensic charges therefore the expected outturn is an underspend of £1,050k, this is slightly higher than the projected Quarter Three outturn; we remain on track to deliver the year end saving. Period 10
4.2 Pay & allowances
Police officer pay forecast for the year is £100,965k, which is a projected under spend of £2,109k against the original budget. This saving is in part due to maintaining the assumption for natural leavers at 4.5 FTE’s per month for the final quarter which is in line with HR data following a review of leaver rates over recent years. However this is a potential risk if the leaver rate starts to reduce. It has been assumed in the forecast that those officers reaching their 30 years’ service will leave, unless otherwise advised by HR. The balance is in part reflecting actual savings made to date. This has been partly offset by the cost of new officers at c£240k being a Cohort 41 of 7 officers in November; Cohort 42 of 10 officers in January; and 10 officer transferees in February. This saving is over and above the efficiency savings target of £9,230k included in the original budget. The forecast for 31st March 2017 based on the latest review is 1,771.6 FTE’s core funded police officers and 1,846.0 FTE’s in total (including seconded and externally funded). This is 68.9 FTE’s lower than the budget which is in part due to closing 2015/16 with a lower number of officers (c20 FTE’s), combined with the higher levels of natural leavers since in 2016/17 than anticipated.
Police staff and PCSO pay combined forecast for the year is £44,551k, which is a projected under spend of £936k against the original budget. This is predominantly due to PCSO’s where we have continued to see an increase in leavers, combined with savings generated due to closing 2015/16 with a lower number of FTE’s than anticipated. On the current glide path it is forecasted that at the 31st March 2017 PCSO’s will be at 184.0 FTE’s.
Additional savings have been realised through Bear Scotland payments which had originally been budgeted at £500k for the Force. Now that we have had several months of actual costs, we are forecasting a saving across staff and officers of c£100k.
At present some of the costs associated with the Niche capital project are under review, with the possibility that some agency staff costs may be
4 Page 59 of 115
charged back to revenue. If this occurs this will be a risk to delivering the Quarter Three forecast.
4.3 Overtime
Overtime is forecasted to be a combined forecast for the year of £4,169k, which is a projected over spend of £138k against the original budget and largely reflects the year to date actual performance. This overspend is mainly due to a number of operations being the Forest Fields murder and Op Vermicular; and also reflects the impact of losing officers and staff over the first half of the year.
4.4 Transport costs
Transport costs forecast for the year is £6,125k, which is a projected under spend by £339k against the original budget. This is largely due to a virement to realign insurance costs of £450k to Other Supplies & services; partly offset by the by the quarterly review of insurance cost resulting in an increase of £137k based on the past three years average.
4.5 Comms & Computing
Comms & computing forecast for the year is £8,026k, which is a projected overspend of £510k against the original budget. The main element of the variance is due a virement relating to costs associated with the Agile Working Project of £792k these costs have been offset within income with funding from EMOpSS; Police Innovation Funding (PIF); and Collaboration contributions for IT costs for £276k relating to the MFSS which should have been budgeted there in the original budget. The year to date small overspend is largely due to reversal of year end accruals and phasing due to not undertaking monthly accruals; this is not a risk to delivering the year end forecast.
4.6 Other Supplies & services
Other Supplies & services forecast for the year is £3,682k, which is a projected overspend of £2,486k against the original budget. This overspend was mainly due to the virement for the transfer of intruder alarms £159k and realignment of insurance costs £450k; professional fees in EMSCU of £371k which have been offset within income; consultancy fees within projects of £224k for Tri-Force; increased insurance costs of £105k; and ESN project team of £90k; combined with the realignment of costs with externally funded projects of £1,066k which has been offset within income. The year to date position is due to not undertaking monthly accruals and externally funded cost which will be matched by income; this is not a risk to delivering the year end.
4.7 Collaboration
Collaboration costs forecast for the year is £9,940k, which is a projected overspend of £1,253k against the original budget. This is mainly due to a 5 Page 60 of 115
virement from comms & computing costs of £276k relating to the MFSS; increased costs from the MFSS and the delay of the payroll project £318k; the migration to Fusion (Oracle cloud based solution) £260k and DMS upgrades £36k; increased Forensic charges £248k; and £90k for costs in relation to Tri- Force collaboration project team.
Forensic charges for both DNA and home office are expected to be lower than estimate.
Period 10
4.8 Medical retirements
Medical retirements costs forecast for the year is £4,687k, which is a projected overspend of £693k against the original budget. This reflects the estimated number of officers that could be potentially retired this year at 18.3 FTE’s, compared to 11 FTE’s in the budget.
4.9 Capital financing
Capital financing forecast for the year is £3,947k, which is a projected under spend of £703k against the original budget. This is due to £159k from the Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) being lower than budgeted largely due to the lower 2015/16 capital programme; combined with a reduction in the long term interest costs due to reduced borrowings than was originally anticipated.
4.10 Other
Other costs forecast for the year is £6,210k, which is a projected overspend of £920k against the original budget. Approximately £738k of this over spend is due to virements within the camera safety project and offsets underspends across other lines of expenditure and additional income. The remainder is largely due costs associated with Op Kinic (EDL march) at £230k; increased PNC costs £39k; office equipment £28k; and interpreters fees £15k. This has been partly offset by savings in Quarter Three within custody on appropriate adult fees £63k and interpreters fees £47k.
4.11 Income
Income forecast for the year is £15,194k, which is projected to be £2,821k above the original budget. Approximately £2,033k of this variance offsetting costs above through virements and movements within externally funded projects. The remainder relates to £118k additional income from EMSCU; £150k for GPS tagging from the Ministry of Justice; £100k of police lead prosecutions (PLP) income; £77k for the management fee from the camera/speed awareness programme; £63k to cover two analyst posts; a one-off transfer of £63k from externally funded projects for community
6 Page 61 of 115
protection vehicles and mental health; £59k from Tri-Force collaboration towards staff costs; £47k from Hate Crime income; £36k from vehicle recovery income; and £35k of vetting income. Income is ahead of forecast year to date largely due to the timing of receipts from the Home Office.
4.12 Efficiencies
The 2016/17 efficiency target in order to achieve a balanced budget is £12.0m. Finance and the DtF team are constantly reviewing all efficiency projects with the organisation to identify any possible risks or opportunities to delivering the yearend target. At present we are on track to deliver the £12.0m, however tight control of costs still needs to be maintained and all expenditure challenged to ensure the best use of resources, as if these efficiencies are not delivered then there is a risk to the year end.
4.13 OPCC
The OPCC is forecasting an on budget performance with an outturn of £4,729k. It is assumed that any under spend that may arise during the year will be transferred to the OPCC’s Commissioning reserve at year end.
5. Financial Implications and Budget Provision
5.1 The financial information relating to this item is contained within Appendix A.
6. Human Resources Implications
6.1 There are no immediate Human Resource implications arising from this report.
7. Equality Implications
7.1 There are no equality implications arising from this report.
8. Risk Management
8.1 Please see attached Appendix A.
9. Policy Implications and links to the Police and Crime Plan Priorities
9.1 There are no policy implications arising from this report.
10. Changes in Legislation or other Legal Considerations
10.1 There are no changes in legislation or other legal considerations that are relevant to this report.
7 Page 62 of 115
11. Details of outcome of consultation
11.1 The figures included in this report are presented to the Force Executive Board on a monthly basis.
12. Appendices
12.1 Appendix A – Revenue Report to January 2017
13. Background Papers (relevant for Police and Crime Panel Only)
NB See guidance on public access to meetings and information about meetings for guidance on non-public information and confidential information.
8 Page 63 of 115
Nottinghamshire Police Revenue Budget Monitoring as at January 2017
2016/17 Opportunities / Seconded & EF Revised Year to Date Year to Date Year to Date Projected Over/ Movement from Approved Budget Virements Risks Projects Budget Budget Expenditure Variance (Under)spend previous Month £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000
Operations City 37,371 51 (2,923) - 34,499 28,546 28,524 (22) (2,872) 19 County 35,605 50 (4,130) - 31,525 25,893 25,665 (228) (4,080) (288) Contact Management 12,874 12 (422) - 12,463 10,324 10,392 68 (410) (199) Citizens in Policing 379 - (32) - 347 296 282 (14) (32) 30 EMOpSS 9,417 17 1,141 - 10,576 8,491 8,507 16 1,159 25 Intelligence & Investigations 28,048 33 (1,897) - 26,185 21,523 21,335 (188) (1,864) (268) 123,693 163 (8,262) - 115,594 95,073 94,704 (369) (8,099) (680) Collaboration - Operational EMCJS 8,933 - (26) - 8,907 7,375 7,628 253 (26) (218) Forensics 2,478 - 45 - 2,523 1,657 1,676 19 45 - CSI 1,428 - (367) - 1,062 864 899 35 (367) (65) Special Branch 802 - 15 - 817 684 632 (53) 15 - Major Crime 2,819 - 28 - 2,846 2,248 2,288 40 28 53 EMSOU CID 2,819 - (22) - 2,797 1,348 1,469 121 (22) 14 TSU 632 - 12 - 645 346 308 (39) 12 - EMSOU SOCU 2,372 34 (301) - 2,105 1,767 1,828 62 (267) (10) 22,284 34 (616) - 21,702 16,289 16,727 438 (582) (227) Corporate Services Assets 6,410 (28) (129) - 6,253 5,028 4,799 (229) (157) (45) Fleet 4,226 (450) 84 - 3,859 2,958 2,400 (558) (366) - Finance 843 - (87) - 756 617 591 (27) (87) (110) Human Resources 8,880 54 (415) - 8,519 6,605 6,601 (4) (361) (3) Information Services 9,466 (240) (440) - 8,786 7,825 7,492 (333) (680) (160) Corporate Development 3,013 35 (708) - 2,340 1,897 1,783 (114) (673) 54 Corporate Communications 617 - (66) - 551 442 405 (37) (66) (44) Command 1,083 - (334) - 749 652 657 5 (334) - PSD 1,785 - (334) - 1,451 1,191 1,151 (40) (334) (35) Procurement 692 (1) (63) - 628 531 500 (31) (64) - MFSS 1,783 240 318 - 2,342 - - - 558 - Central Codes (2,523) 248 8,465 - 6,190 4,674 4,892 218 8,713 314 Other 893 42 1,730 - 2,665 4,038 3,771 (267) 1,772 526 37,168 (101) 8,023 - 45,090 36,460 35,042 (1,417) 7,922 497 Collaboration - Corporate Services Learning & Development 760 (54) 54 - 760 380 634 254 - - EMSCU 240 (42) (45) - 153 183 91 (92) (87) - Force Collaboration 214 - (58) - 155 13 134 121 (58) - HR Shared Services ------(1) (1) - - IS Transformation 82 - (39) - 44 76 42 (35) (39) - Legal 494 - 8 - 502 248 387 139 8 (23) OHU 502 - (15) - 487 223 403 180 (15) - 2,293 (96) (95) - 2,102 1,122 1,690 568 (191) (23) Externally Funded (0) - 0 - - 856 (395) (1,251) 0 -
Seconded Officers - - - - - 468 (112) (580) - - Force Total 185,438 (0) (950) - 184,488 150,268 147,656 (2,612) (950) (433) OPCC 4,729 - - - Page 644,729 of 115 3,712 3,655 (57) - - Group Position Total 190,166 (0) (950) - 189,216 153,980 151,311 (2,669) (950) (433)
16:14 24/02/2017 Nottinghamshire Police Revenue Budget Monitoring as at January 2017
2016/17 Opportunities / Seconded & EF Revised Year to Date Year to Date Year to Date Projected Over/ Movement from Approved Budget Virements Risks Projects Budget Budget Expenditure Variance (Under)spend previous Month £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000
Pay & Allowances Police Officer 103,074 - (2,048) (61) 100,965 83,998 84,016 18 (2,109) (200) Staff 37,814 (3) 112 67 37,990 31,542 31,152 (389) 176 (112) PCSO 7,673 3 (1,085) (30) 6,561 5,548 5,587 39 (1,112) - 148,561 (0) (3,021) (24) 145,516 121,087 120,754 (333) (3,045) (312) Overtime Police Officer 3,440 1 316 (255) 3,502 2,338 2,896 558 62 - Staff 556 - 68 3 627 454 550 96 71 - PCSO 35 - 5 0 41 35 36 1 5 - 4,031 1 389 (252) 4,169 2,827 3,482 655 138 - Other Employee Expenses 929 - 26 (1) 954 706 690 (17) 25 (15) 153,521 1 (2,605) (278) 150,639 124,621 124,926 305 (2,882) (327) Premises costs 6,027 23 (26) - 6,024 4,813 4,564 (249) (3) 33 Transport costs 6,464 (450) 146 (35) 6,125 4,854 4,532 (322) (339) - Comms & computing 7,516 (283) 788 5 8,026 6,931 5,969 (962) 510 - Clothing, uniform & laundry 466 (1) (63) - 403 343 330 (13) (64) - Other supplies & services 1,196 450 1,099 938 3,682 1,720 3,447 1,727 2,486 15 Collaboration contributions 8,688 276 977 - 9,940 5,265 6,240 975 1,253 317 Medical Retirements 3,994 - 693 - 4,687 3,480 3,706 226 693 41 Capital Financing 4,650 - (703) - 3,947 3,113 3,071 (42) (703) - Other 5,290 (4) 721 203 6,210 4,688 4,645 (43) 920 (106) 44,290 10 3,632 1,111 49,043 35,207 36,505 1,298 4,753 299 Total Expenditure 197,811 11 1,027 833 199,682 159,828 161,431 1,603 1,871 (27) Income (12,373) (11) (1,977) (833) (15,194) (9,560) (13,774) (4,215) (2,821) (406) Force 185,438 0 (950) - 184,488 150,268 147,656 (2,612) (950) (433) OPCC 4,729 - - - 4,729 3,712 3,655 (57) - - Group Position Total 190,166 0 (950) - 189,216 153,980 151,311 (2,669) (950) (433)
Page 65 of 115
16:14 24/02/2017 Pd10 Capital expenditure Appendix 1 2016-17 Original Approved 2016-17 Budget inc. (Under)/Over New Spend to Budget Forecast slippage Slippage Spend Projects Virements date Remaining spend £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 Estates Projects Access Control Improvement Works 327 -25 302 0 302 Automatic Gates/Barriers - various 200 -200 0 0 Delayed start to project Biomass Boilers 15 15 15 Awaiting decision on option choices - accrual in 15-16 still Bridewell Refurbishment 588 -588 -10 10 0 awaiting clearance Building Management replacement system 370 -348 22 0 22 Awaiting report on project Decision needed on this building - new business case Bulwell Refurbishment 150 -150 0 0 written if required Bunkered Fuel Tank Works 225 -225 0 0 Decision needed on best location due to tri-force Byron House 87 87 0 87 Costs higher than budgeted Carlton - EMAS Community Station 100 0 80 2 178 180 CCTV (Non Custody) 13 6 7 13 Custody Improvements 25 19 6 25 DIU/Cyber 180 66 114 180 Likely saving
Eastwood Police Station Replacement -100 140 1 39 40 New project approved by PCC - will not complete this year FHQ External Street Lighting 160 -5 137 18 155 Slippage is retention monies FHQ Kennels 569 -36 50 497 86 583 FHQ Tanking to Property store 42 14 56 0 56 Kirkby-in Ashfield shared services Hub 0 150 139 11 150 New project approved by PCC Not practical to complete this year with other work Lift replacement - Mansfield 55 -55 0 0 underway Lucerne/Themis 170 1 169 170 Likely saving Mansfield - create open plan space 800 -700 -50 50 50 Possible saving once plans finalised Mansfield Partnership Hub 0 90 90 0 90 New project approved by PCC Newark - create open plan space 600 -520 -80 0 0 Oxclose Lane Refurbishment 837 -225 301 311 612 Radford Rd Kitchen & rest room 5 5 5 Radford Road Lifts 54 3 51 54 Possible saving - asbestos issues - negotiating with Response Hub - Ranby 220 -219 1 0 1 landlord for siting of modular building Retford Shared Service base 5 5 5 Southern Public Protection Refurb 30 30 30 Old project for which we owed a supplier who went into Tom Ball Retention 0 6 6 0 6 liquidation Allows for heat recovery ventilation and storage space for Watnall Road Response Hub 42 -30 40 52 52 response teams West Bridgford 1st floor refurbishment 290 -290 0 0 Possible saving - use of building still to be determined 6,072 -3,046 -523 380 0 1,726 1,157 2,883 60%
Page 66 of 115 2016-17 Original Approved 2016-17 Budget inc. (Under)/Over New Spend to Budget Forecast slippage Slippage Spend Projects Virements date Remaining spend £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 ICT Projects Airwave Device Replacement 22 -22 0 0 Cloud Networking Migration 300 300 300 Crime Recording (CRMS) A & E 23 -23 0 0 Niche achieved this aim Desktop Virtualisation 173 -11 184 173 Digital Investigations Unit Equipment 0 90 76 14 90 New project approved by PCC EMRN Services onto PSN bearers 34 -34 0 0 Now part of a larger regional project Exchange 2010 5 5 5 Improvements to Digital Investigation Storage 336 -190 146 0 146 More storage to be purchased Oct '17 Intrusion - monitor & heal software 60 -20 14 26 40 Better prices have been achieved Local Perimeter Security Enhancements 31 -10 8 13 21 Better prices have been achieved Migrate to PSN 27 -27 -27 27 0 Mobile Data Remote Working 524 243 281 524 Network Infrastructure Improvements 350 74 276 350 Regional Agile Working 998 -298 -152 852 700 The negative expenditure due to prior year adjustment Regional ANPR 99 99 99 Regional LAN Desk Merger development 458 41 417 458 Regional Project Storage (DIR) 72 72 72 Ring of Steel ANPR Cameras 210 210 210 Sharepoint Portal 200 -100 100 100 Led by region Storage Solutions 201 13 188 201 System Centre Operation Manager (SCOM) 70 70 70 Telephony Project 962 13 590 385 975 Upgrade Audio Visual Equipment 46 4 42 46 Upgrade Control Room SICCS Workstations 674 -100 92 482 574 Complexity of project causing delay Windows 7 13 -13 0 0 5,888 -412 -412 90 0 1,111 4,043 5,154 22%
Page 67 of 115 2016-17 Original Approved 2016-17 Budget inc. (Under)/Over New Spend to Budget Forecast slippage Slippage Spend Projects Virements date Remaining spend £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 Other Projects Artemis Fleet Management 161 -161 0 0 No spend since Nov '15 hence project now complete Bassetlaw/Broxtowe ANPR provision 50 -50 0 0 Project complete Body Worn Video 113 110 3 113 Chief Officer Team vehicles 30 29 1 30 Digital Interview Recorders 18 18 18 Evidence Storage - A & E 55 -55 0 0 Firearms Cabinets & Access Storage 150 -80 70 70 Niche 296 1,200 1,496 0 1,496 Further recoding to I&E required Northern Property Store Increased Storage 300 -200 100 100 Taser Deployment 0 61 61 61 New project approved by PCC Tri Force Collaboration 0 3,076 6 3,070 3,076 As per Transformation bid 1,173 -335 989 3,137 0 1,641 3,323 4,964 33%
Total Programme 13,133 -3,793 54 3,607 0 4,478 8,523 13,001 34% -3000 -3000 IT Slippage Risk / Potential Savings -500 -500 Estates slippage Risk 5,023 9,501 47%
Page 68 of 115
Page 69 of 115 For Consideration Public/Non Public* Public Report to: Police and Crime Panel Date of Meeting: 24th April 2017 Report of: Paddy Tipping Police Commissioner Report Author: Kevin Dennis E-mail: [email protected] Other Contacts: Kevin Dennis Agenda Item: 8
POLICE AND CRIME PLAN (2016-18) –THEME 3 - FOCUS ON PRIORITY CRIME TYPES AND THOSE LOCAL AREAS THAT ARE MOST AFFECTED BY CRIME AND ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
1. PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide the Police and Crime Panel with a progress report on how the Commissioner is delivering his strategic activities in respect of Theme 3 of his refreshed Police and Crime Plan for 2016-18.
1.2 The report identifies success measures and an outline of the activities that have been progressing across policing and community safety. This report covers the time period 1st April to 28th February 2017.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 That the Meeting discuss and note the progress made.
2.2 That the Meeting scrutinises performance against the strategic priority themes and activities set out in the Police and Crime Plan.
3. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 The Panel has requested an update on Theme 3 in its work plan for 2016-17.
3.2 This 11 monthly monitoring report provides an overview of the delivery of the activity and performance in respect of Theme 3 of the Police and Crime Plan (2016-18).
4. Summary of Key Points
4.1 Appendix A provides a Table summarising the progress and achievements in respect of Theme 3. The activities have been graded in terms of
Page 170 of 115
completion/progress and it will be seen that 85.7% of activity is Green i.e. has been achieved or adequate progress made.
5. Financial Implications and Budget Provision
5.1 None - this is an information report.
6. Human Resources Implications
6.1 None - this is an information report.
7. Equality Implications
7.1 None
8. Risk Management
8.1 Risks to performance are identified in other reports.
9. Policy Implications and links to the Police and Crime Plan Priorities
9.1 This report provides Members with an update on progress in respect of Theme 3 of the Police and Crime Plan for 2016-18.
10. Changes in Legislation or other Legal Considerations
10.1 None which affects the content of this report.
11. Details of outcome of consultation
11.1 The Deputy Chief Constable has been consulted on this report.
12. Appendices
A. Table detailing the progress and achievements of the Commissioner’s toward Theme 3 of the Commissioner’s Police and Crime Plan (2016-18).
Page 271 of 115
13. Background Papers (relevant for Police and Crime Panel Only)
Police and Crime Plan 2016-2018 (published)
For any enquiries about this report please contact:
Kevin Dennis, Chief Executive of the Nottinghamshire Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner [email protected]
Tel: 0115 8445998
Philip Gilbert, Head of Strategy and Assurance of the Nottinghamshire Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner [email protected]
Tel: 0115 8445998
Page 372 of 115
Page 73 of 115 APPENDIX A
POLICE AND CRIME PLAN (2016-18)
COMMISSIONER’S STRATEGIC THEME 6 UPDATE Draft V1 QRT 3 UPDATE (April 2016 to February 2017)
STATUS KEY and Results: The overall rating is therefore very good
Achieved or Started but Inadequate Unachieved or Not Started but Planned to Green Adequate Progress Amber Progress or Risk that it Red likely that it won’t White (NS) take place during later Qrt being Made won’t be achieved be achieved
Number & Number & 18/21 (85.71%) Number & % 2/21 (9.52%) 1/21 (4.76%) 0/21 (0%) % %
THEME 3: FOCUS ON PRIORITY CRIME TYPES AND THOSE LOCAL AREAS THAT ARE MOST AFFECTED BY CRIME AND ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
Lead RAGB Ref Strategic Activity Officer STATUS
3C01 NW/DH PL1: Continue to support partnership working in high crime neighbourhoods in the City and County. G
The Commissioner has invested £285,000 into locality working in the county and has continued to support work in high crime neighbourhoods in the city through Update funding of community cohesion posts and ending gangs youth violence activity. The funding has supported a range of activity including greater integration of services in Mansfield and Ashfield, an initiative to tackle street drinkers in Bassetlaw and diversion from gangs in the city.
1 Page 74 of 115
Review and integrate strategic assessment planning and analytical support and rationalise analytical performance products. 3C02 KH /NCC G New (2016-17): PARTNERSHIP WORKING AND COLLABORATION - Implement the outcome of the review of Analyst posts for County Community Safety Partnerships and enhance working
The Nottinghamshire County Council Community Safety Manager has undertaken a review of the analytical requirements of community safety partners and submitted a report to the Safer Nottinghamshire Board on Friday 3rd March 2017. The SNB have initiated a project to review their arrangements for providing performance information to the SNB and CSP’s. This includes the development of a new performance management framework with specific products and processes to support this. After this is agreed, the analytical function will Update then be designed to deliver this. It has been agreed that a needs assessment based approached is required; building on the processes and products of the OPCC, and it is expected the products and functions that result from the SNB review will work closely with the OPCC analytical function. An initial outline proposal for a performance management approach, and therefore related skills, was agreed at the SNB on Friday 3rd March 2017 and over the coming months this will be further developed so that a more advanced proposal can be put before the SNB in June 2017.
3C03 PG/DC/AR Support and use new technology to prevent and reduce crime – ANPR, GPS tags and mobile CCTV. A
DC GPS Tags: In 2016, the Force (together with a number of other forces) applied for and was successful in being part of a national pilot scheme funded by Ministry of Justice (MOJ) in respect of GPS tagging of offenders leaving prison as a means of control and GPS tags imposed by the Court as an alternative to offenders being remanded in prison. The Force has seconded a Detective Chief Inspector to the midlands project (funded by MOJ). Currently, the volume of offenders tagged in less than expected and ways of increasing the number of tags is being considered e.g. as part of a curfew. The project will be independently evaluated initially during 2017. AR ANPR: The ANPR portfolio has recently (February 2017) been transferred to a new lead officer who is undertaking a review and assessment of the current ANPR Update network and associated functions and will be reporting his findings to ACC Prior on 22nd March 2017 and this will inform the annual force risk assessment process as well as propose activity and priority areas to focus upon during 2017-18. The National ANPR project, which was strategically paused during 2016, was re-started in the Autumn of 2016. The implications and impact on the Force will be included in the review and assessment referred to above. Elements of the ANPR estate are at, or close to, end of life which needs to be addressed prior to any expansion activity. There are also some governance and compliance matters to address. These have been reflected in the review and assessment of the ANPR network. Provisional key lines of work and initial discussion with the key enablers to deliver them have already commenced AR CCTV: There are no new CCTV developments
3C04 PG/AR PL1: Work with Partners and Force to better understand and respond to wildlife crime in rural areas. G
2 Page 75 of 115
The rural crime delivery group has been strengthened with invitations to districts, NCC, Forestry Commission, NFRS and various Estates. Existing links with Notts Wildlife Trust have been used to deliver a training input to wildlife crime officers. A bid to the PCC Community Safety Fund by Notts Wildlife Trust has been developed and is supported by me to increase awareness, understanding, skills and knowledge of frontline staff across the partnership. An officer is to undertake the national wildlife crime course in March 2017 – increasing their skill-set and the force’s capacity to respond to wildlife crime. Links have been made with the rural crime leads for Leicestershire and Northants – with consideration being given to further formalised meetings. Update Work continues with the Niche team to ensure as a force we disseminate relevant intelligence and information to the National Wildlife Crime Unit and to ensure that developments within the Niche system are not detrimental to wildlife crime. Established links with the National Wildlife Crime Unit are already in place and are tried and tested to ensure that actionable intelligence regarding Nottinghamshire is received and actioned. The BNS CSP joint strategic group using a STRA methodology and approach have identified rural crime as a priority area for further work / assessment and this is underway. January 2017 saw the start of the training for Rural Parish Special Constables. This training will see over the next few months’ generic and rural-specific training being delivered with completion and first patrols in late spring.
3C05 ME PL2: Continue to provide leadership to roll out E-CINS case management system G
A structured E-learning training system is being developed with a launch date of April 3rd 2017. Nottingham City Council Community Protection have indicated they wish to use ECINS to manage their core business (along with associated partners)and thus they are applying the necessary leverage within NCC to ensure that all required ISAs (Information Sharing Agreement) are signed with all due haste. Update Nottinghamshire County Council have made indications that they intend to sign the ISA in the very near future and there have been enquires from several departments within the County Council regarding training for ECINS. Mansfield, Bassetlaw and Ashfield Borough Councils have all commenced using ECINS and are pleased with the results
Develop a robust outcome framework and guidance for commissioned services, which is a proportionate approach to evaluating 3C06 NW A outcomes for small grants.
Outcomes frameworks have been developed and put in place for specialist domestic and sexual violence and abuse support services. An outcomes framework for Update Nottinghamshire Victim CARE is being developed. For other commissioned community safety activity, an electronic portal has been developed to capture performance monitoring and outcomes achieved. This gathers information from community safety partnership activity and small grants.
PL1: Review and update PCC and Force public engagement strategy, exploring the use of social media and Alert system to inform 3C07 DH G the public about changes to neighbourhood policing.
3 Page 76 of 115
The PCC’s revised and updated public engagement strategy was reviewed by the Police and Crime Panel in May 2016. This set the core principles and framework for local consultation and engagement activity in 2016/17 which led to OPCC achieving a more robust and representative consultation process in 2016/17. This included standardisation of question sets across the various engagement approaches undertaken in order to improve the consistency and comparability of results and work to develop the Mystery Shopper programme to explore services delivered to victims of crime. The engagement strategy will be formally reviewed in May Update 2017, including any key indicators of success that will form part of the Police and Crime Plan review in 2017/18. The Force is currently undertaking a project to improve the management and standardisation of social media use across the organisation through a single software platform that will help to channel the 95 platforms, including Neighbourhood Alert, Facebook and 60 Twitter accounts currently in use. This is due to conclude in April 2017. The force is also aiming to roll out Police.UK as a consistent central public reporting tool by April 2018. This will follow the conclusion of a regional pilot currently underway in Lincolnshire.
PL1 - New: Following the ASB and Hate event in April 2016 consider taking forward the suggestion of establishing a dedicated 3C08 PG G partnership task force to tackle the more difficult ASB issues.
This suggestion was considered but since the event and subsequent discussions with key stakeholders, it is believed that a dedicated partnership task force to Update tackle the more difficult ASB issues is unnecessary and that partnership working and shared support is possible without a dedicated team. PL1 - New: Produce and ASB leaflet and Practitioner booklet to help increase knowledge of the available powers to tackle ASB 3C09 PG/SS G and Hate Crime and upload best practice on PCC web site. The Commissioner held an ASB and Hate Crime Partnership event in April 2016 at which a number of case studies were discussed together with ASB tools and Update powers to help increase working knowledge and capability to tackle ASB. Subsequently, a draft ASB public focused leaflet and Practitioner booklet have been prepared and will be uploaded on PCC web site once finalised.
PL7.7 - New: Commit to budget for the duration of your term in office for a communications campaign tackling misogyny & street 3C10 NW G harassment?
The Commissioner has funded Nottingham Women’s Centre since 2015 to develop initiatives to tackle misogyny and street harassment. During the first year the Update project was fully scoped and buy-in from local agencies gained. In the second year there was a communications campaign which gained national coverage and the training was rolled out. Further work is planned to tackle work around online abuse and evaluation to evidence the impact of the project
3C11 NW PL7.9 - New: Run bespoke training for public transport providers on street harassment & misogyny? G
The Commissioner has funded Nottingham Women’s Centre since 2015 to develop initiatives to tackle misogyny and street harassment. During the first year the Update project was fully scoped and buy-in from local agencies gained. In the second year there was a communications campaign which gained national coverage and the training was rolled out. Further work is planned to tackle work around online abuse and evaluation to evidence the impact of the project
4 Page 77 of 115
ACC Prior/ 3F01 GM Gerard PL1: Implement operational control strategies for priority crime types. G Milano
The Force agrees its Control Strategy based upon the content of the preceding Force Strategic Intelligence Assessment (FSIA). The FSIA and Control Strategy are signed off by Command at the Update Strategic Tasking & Coordination Group meeting. Each crime theme identified as a priority within the Control Strategy will have a lead officer assigned who will be responsible for setting SMART strategic objectives and plans for the coming strategic period.
ACC Prior/ MT 3F02 PL1: Ensure NICHE is able to continue to identify record and monitor rural crime and incidents. G Mark Turner
The introduction of Niche has not altered the method identification and monitoring of Rural Crime. [Provided through Mapping Software based on the coordinates of the offence]. There are no further Update requirements at this time but MT has contacted the Force lead and lines of communication remain open for any change to be accommodated.
3F03 AR PL1: Plan, participate and deliver partnership cross-border days of action (rural crime). G
Operation Traverse tackles angling and waterside crime and ASB. A number of forces are signed up / committed to Operation Traverse (also known and badged as Operation Gallileo to forces to the west of England). Led by a nominated Special Constable, who is the Force’s SPOC for angling issues on behalf of the lead Rural Crime Chief Inspector. This operation brings together the rural Special Constables pro-active team, The Angling Trust, the Environment Agency Enforcement Team, voluntary bailiffs, club bailiffs and neighbourhood policing teams. They jointly patrol the water- side engaging with and reassuring legitimate anglers whilst tackling illegal angling and ASB. Regular pre-planned patrols take place with some or all of the aforementioned agencies. The latest iteration of the operation tool place on 4th February and saw representation from the rural specials pro-active team, voluntary bailiffs, Angling Trust, Environment Agency and Gedling NPT PCSOs. The operation included the use of the EA’s new RIB (Rigid Inflatable Boat) which allowed islands and lass accessible places to be reached and checks made. Its capabilities mean that Update operations can now take place at night and hidden illegal nets can be detected. In total 167 checks were made and a vast amount of ground covered. A formal, generic operational order is being developed to further professionalise the operation. Previous operations have included coordinated patrols with Lincolnshire Officers on the Northern banks of the River Trent. Future dates are already being planned in and are business as usual activity for the rural specials pro-active team. Operation Bifocal tackles the rural crime issues of hare coursing, poaching and crop damage. This is coordinated and led by a Police Sergeant. Routine Bifocal patrols involving the local Bassetlaw neighbourhood policing team and rural specials pro-active team occur on a regular basis interspersed with larger scale multi-force operations. South Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, Staffordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northants have all participated in at least one coordinated operation whilst also conducting their own local activity based upon their local intelligence picture. The operation utilises and relies upon farmers, gamekeepers and local estate staff to act as eyes and ears for the policing resources. Larger scale operations are planned every 6 weeks over the autumn/winter months. Future dates until March are planned in already.
ACC Prior/ MH * PL7.2. Force to work closely with schools and mental health institutions to prevent harm caused by drugs and 3F04 G Mark Holland alcohol issues
5 Page 78 of 115
Currently the Force does not have dedicated Schools Officers, although our Neighbourhood Team Officers do work within schools and other educational institutions within the Force area. Likewise, Update officers work closely with mental health colleagues and have an Officer that is linked in to the welfare of individuals at these premises. Any national campaigns that are identified for schools we will always support. The engagement with schools is subject to continual review.
ACC Prior/RF 3F05 Richard PL2: Review and support target hardening to prevent and detect crime. G Fretwell
The crime prevention team has been reduced through DTF1 to now only having two people. One provides the architectural liaison role for the force and the second person is predominantly involved in administering the sanctuary scheme. This means that the old style crime prevention function is delivered with a much reduced capacity. The crime prevention team have been moved under the line management of C/Insp Ostle in the Local Policing Unit and a review is underway to look at how crime prevention can be delivered differently. Options to train PCSOs and volunteers are being scoped Update so that more people can deliver basic crime prevention messages as part of their core role including target hardening. Other methods of target hardening, for example around business / retail crime are also being pursued. Supt Fretwell has taken on the business crime lead and along with C/Insp Davies and other partners are linking in with the National portfolio lead to review the business crime strategy and work with the industry to reduce crime. It is proposed that a regional business crime group is implemented to link in to the National steering group to ensure consistency of delivery and messaging to businesses. This work is in its early stages.
3F06 TA/RF PL1: Continue to support and revitalise different integrated Neighbourhood working models’ G
We are working with partners to review integrated models of working. Aurora 2 continues in the City and the SNB review of Integrated Locality working are the two key work streams that both Supt Update Antill and Supt Fretwell are involved in that will support and revitalise integrated neighbourhood models.
RF Richard PL1 - New: Undertake a review of NPT with a view to establishing optimum and viable staffing levels to deliver effective 3F07 G Fretwell Neighbourhood Policing which has regard to the best practice of Aurora 2.
This work is on-going. We have submitted a business case to FEB for the Uniformed Operations Command that was pulled together by Simon Allardice and the numbers in NPT from that paper have been agreed. The best practice of Aurora 2 has been used when moving to new partnership hubs in both Mansfield and Ashfield and we have commissioned a piece of work to understand and evidence the impact this is having to community safety. There is an initial cost saving to the organisation but the benefits of colocation and the impact upon community safety require an evidence to Update determine if this is best practice and the expected benefits are realised. Mansfield and Ashfield have used some CSP funding to commission an external consultant to review partnership working within the hubs and this is due to finish at the end of March and the partnership will be presented with a full report on how best practice can be further developed through enhanced partnership working. This will include a review of how all the partnership resources are used including the police and whether there are opportunities to invest differently in resources to achieve better outcomes for community safety.
3F08 SO Shaun Ostle PL1 - New: Increase the number of special constables and volunteers to support the work of NPTs. G
There are 3 intakes of SCs planned for 2017, their initial default position is within neighbourhoods as this is where they are tutored. Also, the recruitment will be Update targeted in those areas of most need, as opposed to a generic recruitment. We are currently recruiting approximately 11 Rural Parish SCs specifically to support those parishes.
6 Page 79 of 115
RF / TA Richard 3F09 Fretwell / Ted PL1 - New: Maintain a presence in local communities to maintain community engagement and accessibility. G Antill
This is on-going and linked to the estates strategy. The goal is to maintain a footprint in local communities wherever possible so the NP teams are visible and accessible. A new engagement strategy for the force has been written and rolled out along with a new community profile for each area. Each NPI will have information on their communities that will drive their new engagement plan that will Update be performance audited by the Neighbourhood Supts and Chief Inspectors to drive engagement activity. There are also minimum standards expected of the engagement plans including each area having social media engagement and public meetings as well as other bespoke activities. The first round of one to one performance meetings with NPIs to review community profiles and engagement plans start in February 2017.
PL7.8 - New: Introduce a joint protocol for both universities including designating a police officer within the sexual violence team 3F10 RG R to respond to the specific needs of students?
This action has been risk assessed against a number of competing priorities and resources are not currently available to progress this within the current Update Departmental Business Plan. Further consideration will be given as part of the Quality of Service Review of the Nottinghamshire Police Operating Model which is due to commence in April, 2017’
Performance Strategic Priority Theme 3: Focus on those priority crime types and local areas that are most affected by crime and anti-social behaviour
Measure Objective Target Performance to January 2017
Reduction in i) Reduce Crime in a) A reduction in All Crime The Force is currently recording a 10.1% (6,148 offences) increase in All Crime year-to-date, compared to the same period of ‘All Crime’ Nottinghamshire compared to 2015-16.1 last year. across the with a focus on 1 Force reducing offences b) A reduction in the number Victim-Based crime has increased by 8.1% (4,436 offences) this year, while Other Crimes Against Society have increased by which have a of victim-based crimes 28.3% (1,712 offences) over the same period. The increase in Other Crimes Against Society is driven by a 77.2% increase in high victim impact compared to 2015-16.2 Public Order offences, the majority of which were recorded as a result of the NCRS audit.
1 It is recognised that first time reports of DV, Hate Crime and serious sexual crime will increase. However, by taking positive action to reduce repeat victimisation overall crime should still reduce. 2 In support of this target, Burglary Dwelling, Robbery and Violence with Injury will be priority areas. 7 Page 80 of 115
and reducing c) To monitor the number of offences in those The five areas of Nottingham City that have been identified as experiencing high levels of crimes have recorded a total of offences in those local local areas which 6,847 crimes this year so far. This represents an 11.8% (723 offences) increase in All Crime compared to last year. All five areas which experience a experience a high areas are recording an increase compared to last year, with these ranging from +7.0% on Bridge to +13.7% on St Ann’s. The high level of crime.3 level of crime. percentage increase of 11.8% recorded over the five City areas compares to an increase of 8% over the same period for the City overall. Year-to-date the County priority areas have recorded a total of 11,718 crimes, which equates to a 14.2% (1,459 offences) increase in All Crime compared to last year. This is slightly higher than the increase of 11.8% for the County area as a whole.
ii) To ensure that To reduce the levels of rural Year-to-date the Force has recorded 8,034 rural crimes, an increase of 683 offences (9.3%) on last year. Over the same rural crime does crime compared to 2015-16 and period crime in urban areas has also increase by 9.6% (5,142 offences). The rate of offences per 1,000 population in rural not increase report on: areas (year-to-date) is 37.669 compared to 66.864 in urban areas. a) Rural4 Crime in rural towns and fringes has increased by 10.2% (439 more offences) year-to-date, while crime in rural villages has b) Urban increased by 15.0% (320 more offences).
Reduction in Reduce ASB A reduction in ASB incidents Performance continues to improve, with the Force having recorded a reduction of 1,757 incidents year-to-date (-5.6%). There anti-social incidents in compared to 2015-16 and were 2168 ASB incidents in January, which is the lowest level of monthly incidents seen in the last 4 years. behaviour Nottinghamshire with report on: (ASB) a focus on those local The City partnership area continues to record a reduction in ASB, with 1,614 fewer incidents recorded this year compared to a) Personal 2 incidents areas which last year. This is a 10.4% reduction. The County partnership are recording a smaller reduction at -0.9% (-143 incidents). across the experience a high b) Nuisance Environmental ASB continues to have an increase (+406 incidents or 25.6%), which is lower than last month. ASB Personal Force level of ASB c) Environmental and Nuisance continue to reduce compared to last year (-11.7% or 607 fewer incidents and -6.3% or 1,556 fewer incidents, respectively).
The detection i) An improvement a) An increase in the The Force has recorded 2,494 fewer positive outcomes for Victim-Based Crime this year compared to last. The current year- rate in the detection detection rate for victim- to-date positive outcome rate has improved slightly to 17.5% compared to 23.4% in the same period of last year. 3 (including rate (including based crime where Threat, Positive positive Harm or Risk is high e.g. The NCRS audit has impacted on the rate of positive outcomes. The audit process resulted in an increase in the number of Outcomes) outcomes) for serious sexual crime.5 crimes created that are closed without a positive outcome. It will also be that case that some of the crime numbers created
3 PPA Locality areas targeted in the County and High Impact Areas in the City 4 Force to provide breakdown on Rural Towns and fringes and Rural Villages when monitoring this measure 5 Force to determine crime categories where Threat, Harm and Risk is considered high 8 Page 81 of 115
for Victim- victim-based b) To monitor Detection rate following will require cancellation as a result of investigation to show that a crime was not committed. Additional analysis of Based Crime offences for Total Crime.6 positive outcomes performance has been commissioned by the Force Performance Board and will be discussed at the April meeting.
The positive outcome rate for All Crime is currently at 20.4% compared to 27.7% last year.
ii) To ensure the a) To monitor the proportion The Force has recorded a total of 2,036 community resolutions this year, which equates to 14.9% of all Positive Outcomes appropriate and of Community Resolution over the same period. effective use of disposals. Community Resolution disposals
Why is it important? There is a national target to reduce crime. Priority focus on prevention to reduce demand, with continuing multi-agency action to tackle anti-social behaviour and manage high volume offenders to reduce the number of victims. The Commissioner is now responsible for commissioning victim services. It’s important that any changes to the Police operating model does not have any adverse impact on rural communities. Further monitoring of hamlets, towns and villages will be undertaking in this year’s plan. A range of activities will be undertaken to encourage increased reporting of DV, Hate Crime and sexual crime. Increased public confidence will lead to increased reporting levels. Greater emphasis is placed on increasing the detection levels for victim based crimes where threat, harm and risk are high.
6 New monitoring arrangements will be introduced in the PCC Delivery plan for crimes where a suspect has been identified (especially for violence and sexual crimes) to ensure that all possible enforcement action is being taken. 9 Page 82 of 115
Page 83 of 115 East Midlands Police Force Collaborations
Nottinghamshire Police and Crime Panel 24th April 2017
Page 84 of 115 Purpose
This presentation provides an overview of: -
• Current scope of regional collaboration • Governance arrangements • Performance and assurance mechanisms • Achieved and planned financial savings • Areas for further development
Page 85 of 115 Strategic Vision
• To improve public safety • To make better and more productive use of police resources • To increase public confidence in policing Principles • Local policing will remain local • Focus on operational and non-operational support • The benefits and costs will be shared between the five forces
Page 86 of 115 Benefits of Collaboration • Single approach and decision making • Cashable savings and non-cashable savings • Reductions in duplication and bureaucracy Improvements in
• Efficiency and Effectiveness • Capacity and resilience • Consistency, quality and interoperability • Capability and sharing of good practice
Page 87 of 115 Five Force Collaborations • East Midlands Special Operations Unit (EMSOU)
• East Midlands Legal Services
• HR Occupational Health (EMCHRS OH)
• EM Police Collaboration Team
• Regional ICT Project Management Office (Regional IS PMO)
Page 88 of 115 East Midlands Special Operations Unit (EMSOU) • Serious and Organised Crime (EMSOU -SOU) Specialist teams include Regional Intelligence Unit (RIU ), Regional Asset Recovery Team (RART), Fraud and Financial Investigation (FFI ) and Cyber Crime Unit (East Midlands) • Major Crime (EMSOU-MC) Investigating homicides and managing other serious or high risk / harm cases • Special Branch (EMSOU-SB) Working with Security Service and partners to reduce risk from terrorism and extremism • Forensic Services (EMSOU-FS) Delivering a full range of forensic services across the East Midlands Region • Regional Review Unit (RRU) Reviewing undetected major crime investigations on behalf of all five Forces and procedure and practice of critical incidents and missing people inquiries Page 89 of 115 East Midlands Legal Services Unit (EM---LS-LS))) Ensure service provision for all Forces whilst offering greater resilience and breadth of expertise HR Occupational Health (EMCHRS---OH))) Three administration hubs across the five Forces and locally delivered clinics services within each Force area EM Police Collaboration Team (EM---PCT)-PCT) The Police Collaboration Team is a management function to support effective performance management of existing collaborations
Page 90 of 115 Regional ICT (Regional IS---PMO) The Regional Information Services Project Management Office offers cross-Force IS project management support, staffed by a mix of permanent and contracted resources . It aims to provide an independent service, not aligned to any single Force or IS department
Key projects include: § Agile working § Body worn video § Digital interview repository § Holmes 2
Page 91 of 115 Four Force Collaborations • HR Learning and Development (EMCHRS L&D ) Derbyshire , Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Nottinghamshire Learning and Development management services, standardised training and the implementation of innovative learning programmes • East Midlands Operational Support Service ( EMOpSS) Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire and Nottinghamshire Integrated operational support service comprising Road and Armed Policing Team (RAPT), Tactical Armed Policing Team (TAPT ), Tactical Roads Policing Team (TRPT), Tactical Support Teams (TST ), Dogs, Serious Collison Investigation Unit (SCIU) • East Midlands Criminal Justice Service (EMCJS ) Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire and Nottinghamshire Regional CJ service covering EMCJS Custody Services and EMCJS Prosecutions Service,
includes development of Virtual RemandPage Court 92 of 115 and the expansion of Live Links to court Governance The East Midlands PCC Board oversees the collaborations and is split into two agenda sections:
• Part One : New proposals, thematic areas, PCC Portfolios: external partners. • DCC Board: Derbyshire PCC PCCs Chair on rotating basis • Resources: Nottinghamshire PCC (currently Northants) • Criminal Justice: Leicestershire PCC • Part Two : Delivery, risk, performance • EMSOU: Lincolnshire PCC Chief Constables Chair • EMOpSS: Northamptonshire PCC
Page 93 of 115 Governance Structure and Performance Information Across Regional Collaborations
KEY:
Meeting Forensics Major Crime
Performance Special Branch / CT Serious and Information Organised Crime
Resource Indicators Financial
EMSOU Management Out of Scope Board 3 Force Strategic EMSCU Management Alliance Business Board Services In EMCHRS Management progress / Board East Midlands PCC Board East Midlands PCC and CEO Future Business Meeting EM Regional Work Occupational Health 5 Force Governance Board Unit
EMOpSS Management Board EMCJS Management Board Performance Learning and EM Legal Services Group Review Teams (x3) Management Board SMT (including 4 Sub Regional PTPM force Heads of x 2 Financial Caseload Armed Policing Tactical Support Crime) breakdown Teams Custody Strategic Human Resources Regional LCJB(s) Roads Policing Police Dogs Board
Custody Prosecutions Response E-border , EAW, East Mids Airport
Human Resources Financial Page 94 of 115 Financial Information: Formula and Grant 2016/17
Force Current Formula 2015/16 Grant 1 Proposed (2015/16) Formula Movement % (2016/17) (£m) % % Nottinghamshire 27.60% 126,777,533 27.6% 0.0% Leicestershire 23.00% 105,596,593 23.0% 0.0% Derbyshire 21.80% 100,405,768 21.8% 0.0% Northants 14.70% 67,736,790 14.7% 0.0% Lincolnshire 12.90% 59,064,939 12.9% 0.0% TOTAL 100.00% 459,581,623 100.00% 0.00%
1 Grant includes The Police Core Settlement Grant and the DCLG Formula Funding Grant. Does not include Regional Information Services Project Management Office (Regional IS PMO ) and HR Shared service
Page 95 of 115 Force Financial Contributions
EM Collaboration NOTTS LEICS DERBYS NORTHANTS LINCS TOTAL Force Contributions 2016/17 27.6% 23.0% 21.8% 14.7% 12.9% £ £ £ £ £ £ EMSOU SOC 2,641,009 2,200,841 2,086,015 1,406,625 1,234,385 9,568,875 EMSOU TSU 573,086 477,572 452,655 305,231 267,856 2,076,400 EMSOU MC 260,392 216,993 205,672 138,687 121,705 943,448 EMSOU FORENSICS 1,087,357 906,131 858,855 579,136 508,221 3,939,700 EMCHRS L&D 760,261 633,151 599,575 405,313 2,398,301 EMCHRS OHU 474,721 395,601 374,961 252,841 221,881 1,720,005 EM LEGAL SERVICE 388,028 323,357 306,486 206,667 181,361 1,405,900 EMPCT 142,789 118,991 112,782 76,051 66,738 517,351 Total Cash Contributions 6,327,645 5,272,638 4,997,001 3,370,550 2,602,147 22,569,979 EMSOU - Officers in Kind 2,141,894 1,784,912 1,691,786 1,140,792 1,001,103 7,760,487 TOTAL COST OF COLLABORATION 8,469,539 7,057,550 6,688,787 4,511,341 3,603,249 30,330,466
Page 96 of 115 Collaborative Savings Target Actual / • The regional collaborations achieved Year Saving Projected £ £ additional savings of £2.7m between 2014 2014/15 500,000 731,515 2015/16 1,000,000 1,601,489 and 2017 against a target set by Chief 2016/17 900,000 326,642 Constables and PCCs of £2.4m TOTAL SAVINGS 2,400,000 2,659,646
TOTAL ANNUAL PERCENTAGE DATE SAVINGS AGAINST SAVING AGAINST COLLABORATIVE UNIT ESTABLISHED BASELINE BASELINE COMMENTS £ % REGIONAL REVIEW UNIT SEPT 2010 107,482 16.25% Cashable savings through a reduction in staff numbers TECHNICAL SUPPORT UNIT JULY 2011 216,612 8.91% Cashable savings through a reduction in staff numbers MAJOR CRIME COMMAND SEPT 2011 3,962,574 27.91% Non-cashable Non-cashable savings savings arising arising from froma reduction a reduction in police in police officers. officers. Plus othe SERIOUS & ORGANISED CRIME SEPT 2011 5,143,835 47.84% Combinationcashable savings of cashable in a reduction savings in(staff) budgets and non-ca(Traininshableg, Equipment, (officers) Fleet plus a REGIONAL INTELLIGENCE FEB 2012 452,678 18.89% Cashable savingsreduction through in budgets a reduction i.e. IT software, in staff numb trainingers plus etc. savings in- REGIONAL FORENSICS JUNE 2012 1,451,095 35.53% force budgets against the cost of forensic submissions. LEARNING & DEVELOPMENT SEPT 2012 714,598 25.27% Cashable savings through a reduction in staff numbers OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH APRIL 2012 706,734 32.62% Cashable savings through a reduction in staff numbers LEGAL SERVICES NOV 2011 1,002,279 40.43% Cashable savings through a reduction in staff numbers TOTAL 13,757,887 Page 97 of32.76% 115 Performance
• Twice yearly regional performance reviews Performance Sub-group established 2017 • Standardised reporting framework includes: - § Commentary and ‘key issues’ § Priorities, objectives, risks § Additional relevant information • Lead PCC model - individual Chief Constables held to account via local governance arrangements
Page 98 of 115 Nottinghamshire Quality of Service Review
• Annual Assessment of the benefits of collaboration • Will form part of the Force / OPCC business planning cycle • ‘Deep Dive’ reviews in areas identified for efficiency improvement • Process to formally commence in June 2017
Page 99 of 115 Independent Assurance
“Current regional collaboration arrangements relatingting to mmajor and serious and organised crime are effective, and it is critical that they are continued and expanded. The forces showed great vision and strong, cohesive leadership in establishing the programme , which was ahead of its time” Recommendations : Develop a clear and integrated vision for future collaboration and develop services that are truly integrated rather than simply shared and address some of the variance in underlying infrastructures HMIC – Working Together: Review of East Midlands Collaboration – November 2013
“The EMSOU model is one which other regions can emulate. It is the most advanced and well established of the Regional Organised Crime Units [and] is an ambitious model of cross -force collaboration which means that its forces and regional communities can benefit from effective and efficient specialist policing services” HMIC Inspection - Regional Organised Crime Unit - December 2015
Page 100 of 115 Independent Assurance
“Merging force grants and budgets into one single counter -terrorism grant is a more effective use of money [and] contributes towards stronger working relationships, better practice and increased flexibility. This is due, in part, to the mature practices and characteristics at the EMSOU SB”
Recommendations : EMSOU SB should provide a briefing document on threat and risk from terrorism in a standardised format, which is shared in a consistent way, with regional PCCs
HMIC – Inspection of counter terrorism funding across the East Midlands – December 2014
Joint criminal justice command structure and use of the same integrated IT system across the four forces is sighted as good practice
Joint Criminal Justice Inspection – Delivering Justice in a Digital Age – April 2016
Page 101 of 115 What Next? • Tri-force IT and Finance Collaboration Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Nottinghamshire Work is underway to explore different staffing models as part of a shared HR resource which is set to proceed in 2018. Practical proposals will be presented late Spring 2017
• Regional Blue Light Collaboration? Policing and Crime Act 2017 introduced statutory duty to consider emergency services collaboration where in the interests of the efficiency or effectiveness East Midlands Ambulance Service (EMAS) engagement via EM PCC Board
Page 102 of 115 Questions
Page 103 of 115 NOTTINGHAMSHIRE POLICE AND CRIME PANEL 24 APRIL 2017 9(b)
PROPOSAL FOR A REGIONAL COLLABORATION WORKSHOP EVENT
Purpose of the Report
1. To consider a proposal to hold a Regional Collaboration Workshop event.
Information and Advice
2. Since its formation in 2012, the Panel has received a number of updates on the topic of East Midlands regional collaboration. Members will be aware
3. This issue has continued to be discussed at the Regional Police and Crime Panel Network meetings, attended by Panel Chairs and support officers. The five Panels in the region are keen to develop a shared understanding of the current challenges, expenditure and savings arising from the regional collaboration agenda.
4. The Regional Network agreed a set of common questions to assist in that respect:-
a. What is currently covered through regional collaboration? b. How is it being governed? c. What are the key aspects of the regional framework? d. Are the planned savings expected from collaboration being achieved? e. Is collaboration delivering operational effectiveness? f. Is there a performance management scorecard? g. Are there business cases for further areas of collaboration?
5. Following further discussions with Kevin Dennis, Chief Executive of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC), this issue has also been discussed by the East Midlands PCC Board. The Board agreed that a generic presentation, to address the above questions and provide further information, should be developed for the Nottinghamshire Panel and subsequently used as a template for presentations to the other four Panels as a means of developing a shared understanding.
6. Derbyshire Police and Crime Panel has established a working group on this issue and Christine Goldstraw OBE (the Chair of the Nottinghamshire Police and Crime Panel) and Keith Ford met with Members of that working group and its support officer on 14 February 2017. Arising from this meeting, it was proposed that a workshop event be arranged with the aims to:-
enable an agreement on a structure for how Panels can collect evidence and monitor regional collaboration activities on an ongoing basis. This will be so they can support and challenge their respective PCCs.
Page 104 of 115 1
provide the opportunity to review the common set of questions on regional collaboration for each East Midlands PCC.
provide the opportunity to give respective Panels the same level of knowledge and understanding of regional collaboration activities and those from outside the East Midlands area.
provide the opportunity to learn from other Panels across the country on how they challenge and support their PCC on collaboration.
allow Panels to challenge and support the governance, accountability and performance monitoring arrangements of the East Midlands Regional Collaboration.
7. It is proposed that each Panel would have places for up to five representatives at the workshop.
8. It is hoped that the event will also be attended by some or all of the PCCs, Chief Constables or their representatives, subject to availability.
9. The proposal was discussed with Frontline Consulting and the East Midlands Regional Network on the 2nd March 2017. There was agreement on the proposed way forward in principle. Officers from the East Midlands Regional Network will now work with Frontline Consulting to develop a detailed proposal for a regional collaboration workshop, including costs, venue and a programme of activity. This will then be put forward to each Panel for their consideration and approval.
10. It is anticipated that Frontline Consultancy’s role in helping to organise this event will include developing the programme with support officers, the preparation of briefing packs, invitations to external contributors for the baseline briefings and facilitation of the discussions around implications, potential structures and potential Key Lines of Enquiry. This input is likely to cost each Panel approximately £500. It is proposed that any additional costs relating to venue hire and refreshments will be shared between the five Panels.
11. If the event is agreed it is likely to be scheduled for a date in September 2017, to be agreed.
Other Options Considered
12. It is proposed that a regional workshop event is the best way of progressing this issue. It could be argued that the support officers of each Panel could arrange the workshop event without external input but this would prevent the Panels utilising the wider experience and specialist skills of an organisation such as Frontline Consultancy.
Page 105 of 115 2
Reason/s for Recommendation/s
13. To seek agreement in principle to develop this proposal further.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1) That the proposal to hold a Regional Collaboration Workshop event be supported in principle, subject to a further report to the Panel in July 2017 clarifying further details, including costs, venue and date.
Background Papers and Published Documents
1) Regional Collaboration Working Group Update Report to Derbyshire Police and Crime Panel meeting of 23 March 2017 (published).
For any enquiries about this report please contact:
Keith Ford, Team Manager, Democratic Services, Nottinghamshire County Council Tel: 0115 9772590 E-mail: [email protected]
Page 106 of 115 3
Page 107 of 115 NOTTINGHAMSHIRE POLICE AND CRIME PANEL 24 APRIL 2017 10
COMPLAINTS UPDATE
Purpose of the Report
1. To update the Police and Crime Panel on complaints considered under the Complaints Procedure.
Information and Advice
2. The Police and Crime Panel (the Panel) is required to make suitable arrangements for handling complaints against the Police and Crime Commissioner (the Commissioner). Criminal complaints must be referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, while local arrangements are required for dealing with other complaints. The Panel has adopted a complaints procedure which is attached for reference as an Appendix to this report.
3. Since the last report to Panel in April 2016 two complaints have been addressed to the Panel.
4. One complaint related to the conduct of a Nottinghamshire Police Officer. Complaints regarding operational matters do not fall within the remit of the Panel; there are separate procedures for dealing with complaints of this nature. The complainant was advised to forward the complaint to Nottinghamshire Police.
5. The second complaint related to the conduct of the Police and Crime Commissioner. In September 2016 the Panel received five complaints from members of the public regarding the Commissioner’s decision to appear in Court to support Mr Neil Greatrex’ application for a firearms licence. Mr Greatrex has a previous conviction for a serious dishonesty offence. The complainants were concerned that the Commissioner’s actions compromised his position.
6. After giving the matter careful consideration, the Chairman of the Panel and the Panel’s Monitoring Officer referred the matter to the Independent Police Complaints Commissioner (IPCC) for review. The IPCC concluded that the matter did not constitute a criminal offence and referred the matter back to the Panel for resolution.
7. The Chairman of the Panel and the Panel’s Monitoring Officer agreed to resolve the matter by making a recommendation to the Commissioner; ‘should you ever be requested to provide a character reference either in writing or in person for an individual with a known conviction, in future you should seek independent advice and give the matter careful consideration before deciding how to proceed’. This brought the matter to conclusion and the complainants were advised accordingly.
Page 1081 of 115
Other Options Considered
8. The report is for noting only.
Reasons for Recommendation/s
9. The report is for noting only.
RECOMMENDATION/S
That the Police and Crime Panel note details of the complaints received in respect of the Police and Crime Commissioner since April 2016.
Background Papers and Published Documents
Letter to the Police and Crime Commissioner dated 28 March 2017
For any enquiries about this report please contact:-
Sue Bearman, Senior Solicitor [email protected] 0115 9773378
Page 1092 of 115
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE POLICE AND CRIME PANEL COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE
BACKGROUND
1. This procedure has been adopted to ensure compliance with the Elected Local Policing Bodies (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2012 which are issued under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011.
2. There are separate procedures for complaints against the Commissioner’s office and staff, and complaints regarding operational policing, the Chief Constable and other police officers. Details are available on the Commissioner’s website and on the PCP website.
AIMS/OBJECTIVES
3. To set out the way complaints against the Police and Crime Commissioner (the Commissioner) and the Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner (the Deputy Commissioner) will be handled by the Police and Crime Panel (PCP).
4. To reassure the public that complaints against the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are dealt with fairly and appropriately.
5. To reassure the public that any complaint relating to a criminal offence will be referred by the PCP to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
INITIAL HANDLING OF COMPLAINTS
Meaning of ‘Complaint’
6. This Procedure relates to complaints about the conduct of the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. ‘Conduct’ means the way things are done or not done, statements are made and decisions taken. It does not cover complaints about the merits of a decision, for example where somebody disagrees with a policy the Commissioner has introduced. The PCP can consider whether a decision was taken properly and in accordance with procedures, but it cannot substitute another view for that of the Commissioner.
Submitting a complaint
7. The PCP has delegated authority for the initial handling of complaints, together with other aspects of the process, to the Host Authority’s Monitoring Officer (Nottinghamshire County Council’s Monitoring Officer) under Section 101(2) of the Local Government Act 1972.
Complaints should be sent to:
The Monitoring Officer Nottinghamshire County Council County Hall
Page 110 of 115 1 West Bridgford Nottingham NG2 7QP
Or emailed to [email protected]
8. When submitting a complaint it is helpful to provide as much information as possible, to be specific regarding what was allegedly said or done, the date it happened, and whether there were any witnesses. A form is available on the website.
Timescales
9. Wherever possible complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days, and concluded within 40 working days if dealt with through informal resolution (see paragraph 29 below).
Duty to preserve evidence
10. Where a complaint is made, the first task is to ensure that all appropriate steps are taken to obtain and preserve evidence relating to the complaint. This duty is ongoing until or unless arrangements are made for the complaint to be dealt with through informal resolution (see paragraph 29 below). This is the exception because informal resolution does not involve the investigation of the complaint (i.e. obtaining evidence about it).
Notification and recording of complaints
11. If the complaint relates to another police force area, the police and crime panel for that area must be notified.
12. If the complaint relates to the PCP’s police force area it will be recorded.
13. If the complaint is recorded, the complainant and the person complained against will be provided with a copy of the record of complaint. However:
The record may be altered to protect the identity of the complainant or any other person.
In some cases the Monitoring Officer may decide not to provide a copy of the record, if doing so might prejudice any criminal investigation or pending proceedings or would in some other way not be in the public interest. Any decision not to provide the record will be kept under regular review.
This duty to provide a copy of the record does not apply where the complaint has been, or is already being, dealt with by criminal proceedings, or where the complaint is withdrawn.
If a decision is taken not to notify or record a complaint, the complainant must be advised and given the reason. Page 111 of 115 2
Notification and recording of conduct matters
14. If an issue arises because of a media report or legal proceedings for example, and it appears that the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner may have committed a criminal offence, this is referred to as a conduct matter.
15. A conduct matter is therefore where no formal complaint has been received, but the matter should be treated in the same way as if there was a complaint.
16. Such matters will be recorded in the same way as a complaint unless it has already been recorded as a complaint or is the subject of criminal proceedings.
Reference to the Independent Police Complaints Commissioner (IPCC)
17. The PCP is not responsible for investigating or determining whether a crime has been committed. The PCP has delegated authority to the Host Authority’s Monitoring Officer for filtering complaints and deciding which complaints may amount to criminal conduct and should be referred to the IPCC. The Monitoring Officer may take advice from the IPCC before making a referral.
18. Any conduct matter (see paragraphs 14-16 above) and any serious complaint (a complaint about conduct that constitutes or involves, or appears to, the commission of a criminal offence) must be reported to the IPCC as soon as possible.
19. Any other complaint must be referred if the IPCC requires it.
20. Referrals should be made as soon as possible and no later than the close of business the day after the PCP becomes aware that the matter should be referred.
21. The complainant and the person complained about should be notified, unless doing so might prejudice a future investigation.
22. It is possible for the IPCC to refer any complaint back to the PCP for resolution.
Circumstances when the PCP does not need to deal with a complaint
23. The Monitoring Officer can decide not to refer the complaint for resolution, or to take no action at all, in the following circumstances: -
A complaint by a member of the Commissioner’s staff, arising from their work
A complaint that is more than 12 months old where there is no good reason for the delay or the delay would be likely to cause injustice
A complaint about conduct that is already the subject of another complaint Page 112 of 115 3
An anonymous complaint
A complaint which is vexatious, oppressive or otherwise an abuse of process for dealing with complaints
A repetitious complaint
24. The complainant will be notified if the decision is taken not to deal with a complaint.
Withdrawn complaints
25. A complainant can withdraw or discontinue their complaint at any time, by notifying the PCP in writing (addressed to the Monitoring Officer) and signing the notification. This must be recorded, and if the complaint has been referred to the IPCC they must be updated too.
26. The PCP may decide not to treat the complaint as withdrawn, but to treat it as a conduct matter and refer it to the IPCC in accordance with the procedure set out above. This decision will be made by the Monitoring Officer in consultation with the Chairman of the PCP.
27. The person who is the subject of the complaint will be kept informed, unless to do so might prejudice a criminal investigation or pending proceedings, or would in some other way not be in the public interest.
Conduct occurring outside England and Wales
28. The Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner are under a duty to notify the PCP via the Monitoring Officer, of any allegation, investigation or proceedings relating to their conduct outside England and Wales. The PCP can take whatever action it thinks fit in these circumstances. This decision will be made by the Monitoring Officer in consultation with the Chairman of the PCP.
Informal Resolution of Complaints
29. If a complaint is not referred to the IPCC or rejected it must be dealt with by informal resolution. This is a way of dealing with a complaint by solving, explaining, clearing up or settling the matter directly with the complainant, without an investigation or formal proceedings. It is a flexible process that may be adapted to the needs of the complainant and the individual complaint.
30. If a complaint has already been satisfactorily dealt with by the time it comes to the PCP’s attention, the complaint may be considered resolved and no further action taken. The Monitoring Officer can take this decision following consultation with the Chairman of the PCP.
31. If action is to be taken the Monitoring Officer will make arrangements following consultation with the Chairman of the PCP. Page 113 of 115 4
32. The handling of the process can be delegated to : -
A sub-committee or a single member of the PCP
Another person, such as the PCC’s Chief Executive or the Host Authority’s Monitoring Officer
But the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner cannot be appointed to consider complaints against each other.
33. If a sub-committee or a person is appointed the PCP can take back responsibility for informal resolution at any time.
34. Informal resolution will be discontinued if the IPCC notifies the PCP that they require the complaint to be referred to them, or if the Monitoring Officer in consultation with the Chairman of the PCP decides the complaint should be referred to the IPCC.
Requirements for informal resolution
35. The intention is for the procedure to be flexible so it can be adapted to individual circumstances.
36. However, there are some formal requirements which are set out below:
No investigation can take place. The PCP has power to require the person complained against to provide information and documents to the PCP and to attend to answer questions. This does not amount to an investigation.
The complainant and the person complained against must be given the opportunity to comment on the complaint as soon as is practicable.
Any failure by the person complained against to comment on the complaint when invited to do so will be noted in the written record.
No apology can be tendered on behalf of the person complained against unless the person has admitted the alleged conduct and agreed to the apology.
The outcome of informal resolution
37. There will be no formal sanctions with informal resolution; ultimately the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner are held accountable by the ballot box. However the PCP may publish a report or recommendation.
38. The aim is to resolve the complaint to the satisfaction of the parties involved. For example, the person complained against may agree that an apology
Page 114 of 115 5 would be appropriate, an explanation might resolve the concern, or an agreement on how to move forward may be reached following mediation.
Publishing the outcome of informal resolution
39. A record of the outcome of the informal resolution must be made as soon as practicable after the process is completed. Copies must be provided to the complainant and the person complained against.
40. The record of the outcome of informal resolution can be published if it is considered to be in the public interest. This decision rests with the Monitoring Officer in consultation with the Chairman of the PCP. Before doing so the complainant and the person complained against will be invited to comment, and their views will be considered.
Keeping records
41. A record of all complaints received will be kept until 12 months after the Commissioner and/or Deputy Commissioner leaves office. The record will include the name of the complainant, details of the complaint and how the matter has been dealt with.
42. Summary reports regarding complaints dealt with under this procedure will be submitted to the PCP on a regular basis.
Appeals
43. There is no right of appeal to informal resolution.
44. However a complaint can be made about the way a matter was handled, for example if it was delayed or if there was a failure to record a complaint. In the first instance the complaint should be addressed to the Chairman of the PCP:
The Chairman of the Police and Crime Panel Nottinghamshire County Council County Hall West Bridgford Nottingham NG2 7QP
45. If a satisfactory response is not received the complainant can refer the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman:
The Local Government Ombudsman PO Box 4771 Coventry CV4 0EH
Page 115 of 115 6